NO CAREER MODE or Money planned for game

[Pthigrivi]

46 minutes ago, Profugo Barbatus said:

As far as I'm aware, this is how resource distribution worked in the first game, with relatively randomized ore distribution. Modded expansions to that system did much the same, with biases for worlds to have certain materials in certain biomes, but within a given range. Its unlikely that they would materially regress in this area, considering the relative ease of development to expand it to have randomness.

I would think they might only go to fixed resource locations if they planned for those locations to be specifically designed rather than randomly distributed. For instance you might find rich ice deposits in deep pockets on Munar poles, or rare resources only exposed in specifically deep craters or near other designed geological features, etc. Either system I think could work.

[Chilkoot]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I would think they might only go to fixed resource locations if they planned for those locations to be specifically designed rather than randomly distributed. For instance you might find rich ice deposits in deep pockets on Munar poles, or rare resources only exposed in specifically deep craters or near other designed geological features, etc. Either system I think could work.

It will be interesting to see how the resource distribution unfolds.  There was some magic in the old biome-dependent distribution of resources, especially when paired with something like *USI/MKS and the excellent "SCANsat" mod - in fact, the functionality that mod added created some of the most compelling and rewarding moments for me at least in KSP 1.  Having a full, high-detail resource map for every planet/moon really felt like an accomplishment, and I remain hopeful something similar will be built in to the new resource gathering portion of the game.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Chilkoot

[Picard2]

48 minutes ago, Chilkoot said:

It will be interesting to see how the resource distribution unfolds.  There was some magic in the old biome-dependent distribution of resources, especially when paired with something like *USI/MKS and the excellent "SCANsat" mod - in fact, the functionality that mod added created some of the most compelling and rewarding moments for me at least in KSP 1.  Having a full, high-detail resource map for every planet/moon really felt like an accomplishment, and I remain hopeful something similar will be built in to the new resource gathering portion of the game.

Agreed. Although the state of early access release kind of wrecked my hype, this thread has revived it. Scansat, resource scanning, a genuine need to visit planets, to send multiple missions. By far my most enjoyable playthrough of KSP1 involved lots of Scansat, such compelling gameplay and always felt much deeper than build a single satellite with all the science modules. Had to actually design missions to meet power and orbital criteria, send return missions to extract resources... Imagining what could be done with a similar system built into the core is really exciting.

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, Chilkoot said:

Having a full, high-detail resource map for every planet/moon really felt like an accomplishment, and I remain hopeful something similar will be built in to the new resource gathering portion of the game.

Yeah of all the functions missing from stock seeing SCANsat-like mechanics in the new science mode is absolutely top of the wishlist for me. The flight execution achieving the right orbit, the time-based element, and the way in which biome, altimetry, slope, and resource maps could be so crucial to picking landing sites and deciding where to build colonies make it one of the biggest no-brainer adds.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[K33N]

Yes, no career mode. It will be a campaign with a resource grind instead IIRC.

Strange choice as, despite the vocal critics, career mode is the most played mode.

Personally I need money and missions to really hold my attention but I'll keep and open mind to the new campaign mode, if we get there.

[caipi]

On 2/26/2023 at 7:29 AM, Cailean_556 said:

How I see it working is that we start in a barebones, un-upgraded KSC - which is essentially our starting colony on Kerbin.

[...]

Our initial tech will likely based on the same tech we start with in KSP1, though I would like to see a "pre-manned rocket" beginning (such as Sounding Rockets) - perhaps as an in-game "hidden tutorial" on managing craft and resources in Exploration mode. I'd also like to see more of a focus on unmanned flight first (mimicking our beginnings of space flight) before we start throwing Kerbals up there.

We will likely be encouraged to explore Kerbin itself initially - to locate basic resources and to conduct basic sciences, allowing us to unlock more advanced technology and upgrade our facilities before the "space race" starts in earnest.

[...]

So while Funds are going, I think what replaces it will be even better. In my opinion.

So, I'm gonna play a space rocket game that starts with having to explore and mine the home world before I can start exploring the Müns and other planets?! That might be fun for the first playthrough, maybe the second as well. But I think it'll get in the way of restarting the game pretty quick! I don't know how many career modes I've started in KSP 1, but I know that the digits on my hands and fingers weren't enough to count them anymore. Mods made this game so enjoyable and so diverse. I already hated the first few slow steps in KSP1, having done them so many times.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first unmanned flights and even researching and testing planes the first few times - once or maybe twice. But this isn't what kept pulling me back to this game over and over and over (etc.) again.

As for your last statement: It depends on how it'll be implemented. We'll see. Unfortunately, right now I'm not very optimistic because many of the things I'm seeing so far feel like the devs haven't played too much KSP1 as there are too many disimprovements and missing crucial basic feature - even for an EA. It feels like they have a vision of what the game should be - with only a single story mission and single playthrough in mind. It doesn't feel like they are experienced die-hard fans who really enjoyed all aspects and the rich diversity of the game and what it can be. But now I start to digress. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Though for now, I'm still on the verge of refunding my EA. Let's see what the next or next two updates bring and where things are heading.

Edited March 8, 2023 by caipi

[Manul]

23 hours ago, Picard2 said:

Running actual missions with real value beyond some abstracted 'funds'? So good. Want to launch that nuclear powered engine? Now you have an actual reason to scan those planets, to mine that uranium, to set up your logistics stations. So much potential for exciting and engaging gameplay here - potential way beyond 'funds'. If done well.

I have experience with hunting rare resources in KSP with mods like Blueshift and The Gold Standart, and it isn't that exciting in long term perspective. The first missions to find Graviolium and Unobtanium and deploy bases for mining them were fun but as long as I had mining bases and reliable transports to get them home it became boring.  Contracts suggest a bigger variety of activities than just scanning and mining, if they are done the right way. Resource gathering is too predictable to be fun, and with random contracts you newer know what you'll have to do next. I had to be really creative repurposing crafts in situ to complete some contracts without waiting years for a transfer window to send another mission. That is the reason why I have to keep a large variety of crafts at Laythe base, and these crafts are capable of performing a large variety of missions on Jool moons. Replacing all this variety with a boring fleet of cargo freighters  is not exciting by any means.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Manul

[Picard2]

36 minutes ago, Manul said:

I have experience with hunting rare resources in KSP with mods like Blueshift and The Gold Standart, and it isn't that exciting in long term perspective. The first missions to find Graviolium and Unobtanium and deploy bases for mining them were fun but as long as I had mining bases and reliable transports to get them home it became boring.  Contracts suggest a bigger variety of activities than just scanning and mining, if they are done the right way. Resource gathering is too predictable to be fun, and with random contracts you newer know what you'll have to do next. I had to be really creative repurposing crafts in situ to complete some contracts without waiting years for a transfer window to send another mission. That is the reason why I have to keep a large variety of crafts at Laythe base, and these crafts are capable of performing a large variety of missions on Jool moons. Replacing all this variety with a boring fleet of cargo freighters  is not exciting by any means.

Oh I agree if it's just a whole mode filled with carting resources back and forth that's going to get boring pretty quick. I really don't believe any of us want a system that is just 90% flying cargo trips back and forth.

For me, random arbitrary contracts in KSP1 were also just really boring. Like, build a base on this moon! The base has to include these random parts slapped together, and you'll never need to go back to the base again. A challenge for sure, but no real long-term gameplay purpose to it.

But I think this all sounds like it has the potential to be a lot more interesting than just random dead-end missions that do have some challenge but don't progress the underlying space program at all. There's just so much more possibilities beyond what KSP1 offered with either random pointless missions or repetitive space hauling for no real reason.

Just my opinion of course, and absolutely agree a huge amount of this depends on how well any system is implemented - space trucker simulator does not sound exciting to me either! But I am excited by the possibility of some actual meaning and purpose to the missions I'm flying.

[Manul]

42 minutes ago, Picard2 said:

 random dead-end missions that do have some challenge but don't progress the underlying space program at all.

1) Commercial missions give funds for exploration missions, isn't it a progress? SpaceX does a lot of commercial missions to afford the Mars mission you know.
2)Combining commercial and exploration aspects in one mission is makes both progress and profit 
3)Contracts encourage to make more reusable crafts and interplanetary infrastructure to make future contracts and exploration go faster and cheaper, isn't this a progress?

48 minutes ago, Picard2 said:

Like, build a base on this moon! The base has to include these random parts slapped together, and you'll never need to go back to the base again.

Just make it useful! Add ISRU, rovers (if there is gravity), probes, planes (if there is atmosphere), submarines (if there is liquid) and you get an exploration or refueling outpost. Also there are contracts to revisit old stuff like "make X experiments around base Y" (that's where the rover comes in handy) or "expand the base Y by adding more random stuff". Many crafts that had been collecting dust at some distant places for years (I mean human years not kerbal) got a new purpose when I took some contracts that I could use them for. With EVA construction repurposing old crafts for new goals is a really fun part of career gameplay. Like the mission where I launched an SSTO from my Laythe base, stole an RTG from an abandoned ship in Laythe orbit and attached it to a rover on Bop to complete the contract. Or an improvised mission from Pol to Eeloo because Eeloo was close to Jool at that moment and there was some work to do.

[Picard2]

1 hour ago, Manul said:

Just make it useful!

Exactly! That's what I'm saying. Make contracts / missions serve a purpose in your program. Like your example of a refuelling outpost in a valuable location in the outer planets. We still don't know how the science system will look, but could equally imagine some sort of long-term base on another world where science is involved. That kind of thing.

I do enjoy the open-endedness of the current career system - you don't only have one main goal (interstellar) but your goals are your own in that playthrough - so I do hope the new system enables that sort of gameplay too. But at the same time feel like there's a risk we're just fixating on the idea that grinding for funds is better simply because that's the only option we've had.

[Manul]

2 hours ago, Picard2 said:

Exactly! That's what I'm saying. Make contracts / missions serve a purpose in your program.

It's up to you to make your missions serve a purpose in your program because no one else knows what is the purpose of your program. Customers will not pay for what you need, they always pay for what THEY need, this is how it works.    After the early grindy days of career playthrough are over  you can afford being picky with the contracts and accept ones that correspond to your own goals. For example I dislike bringing more and more trash to LKO, so I mostly ignore contracts for launching stations and  satellites around Kerbin. The exception is when I need to test a launch vehicle or get more targets for space combat trials. The stock contract system isn't ideal of course, for me it's major flaw is that there is too few applications for rovers and aircraft because I like aircraft and rovers. And there is absolutely no application for naval vessels (okay, it's not a Kerbal Submarine Program, I know). That is why I use Contract Configurator with aircraft-based contract packs that allow me to get through the early career without grinding too much and turning low Kerbin orbit into a junkyard. My SPH folder turns into a junkyard instead due to countless semi-useless low-tech aircraft designes

Edited March 8, 2023 by Manul

[regex]

The KSP1 contract system was absolute and utter trash gameplay, and I am not going to soften that assessment. We really shouldn't even be bringing it up for KSP2.

KSP2 needs to completely rethink how to guide players if it intends to use a "quest system" and that system should serve sandbox players who are more comfortable setting their own goals just as fully as it serves players who require guidance for satisfaction.

Edited March 8, 2023 by regex

[adsii1970]

Before I share my thoughts on this, I want to make it clear that what I say here is my own personal opinion and nothing more. Often when folks see a member of the moderation team is commenting on a thread, that somehow we have additional knowledge of what the game developers have planned for Kerbal Space Program 2. I assure you that every member of the moderation team (we have a green title and are volunteers with nothing else or function with Take Two or Intercept Games other than the moderation jobs we were asked to help with and gladly accepted the corresponding responsibilities to do.

Now, with all that said...

1 hour ago, regex said:

The KSP1 contract system was absolute and utter trash gameplay, and I am not going to soften that assessment. We really shouldn't even be bringing it up for KSP2.

I can agree with this mainly because:

• I began my journey into KSP well before either science or career modes were part of the game.
• Science and career modes seem to be identical in how they approach the game.
• They both seem clunky in how contracts are managed. I often see contracts in the stock game that should be able to be stacked into a single mission - but for some reason, when you try to do that, you cannot complete any mission (test this engine at this altitude and at this speed; test this parachute at this altitude). In real-world space programs, entire launch vehicles are tested at one time - not just an entire mission to test ONE part.
• They both seemed clunky in how the tech tree progression went. There were parts that seemed to be unlocked way before they should be and some parts that were unlocked later in the game that should have been more towards the beginning of the game..

1 hour ago, regex said:

KSP2 needs to completely rethink how to guide players if it intends to use a "quest system" and that system should serve sandbox players who are more comfortable setting their own goals just as fully as it serves players who require guidance for satisfaction.

I believe they are doing this. In all honesty, the original game did well considering it was in an uncharted area of game design  - especially for rocket building games. I know I just do not want to be forced to play a story line game like No Man's Sky for me to unlock parts I need to play what was originally described as a "sandbox" space based game.

3 hours ago, Picard2 said:

Exactly! That's what I'm saying. Make contracts / missions serve a purpose in your program. Like your example of a refuelling outpost in a valuable location in the outer planets. We still don't know how the science system will look, but could equally imagine some sort of long-term base on another world where science is involved. That kind of thing.

This would be great if there were options at the start of a science or career game, assuming they keep those, that would allow a user to configure the contracts in a general way. Allow the user to group contracts and to combine similar contracts into single missions. For example, why not allow one mission that allows for the testing of a heat shield, probe core, and parachute. If all three contracts are fulfilled, then reap the rewards of all three missions AND maybe a bonus for reducing costs because you did it in a single mission. If you fail, then the cost overrun is your fault. It definitely would cause one to rethink how they play the game.

I also like the idea of contracts building one one another. So, your mission to test a parachute, heat shield, and a probe core were successful. So, this next contract set may have more challenges - higher orbit, test an orbital camera on the satellite, test a mystery goo container, and onboard communications to send the results back to the KSC. Oh, and then recover the satellite. And so forth until the contracts require Kerballed space flight.

1 hour ago, Manul said:

That is why I use Contract Configurator with aircraft-based contract packs that allow me to get through the early career without grinding too much and turning low Kerbin orbit into a junkyard. My SPH folder turns into a junkyard instead due to countless semi-useless low-tech aircraft designes

Heh, I play most of my games in Sandbox mode because I like coming up with my own mission parameters. However, I still have an orbital junkyard in LKO. The good news is it justifies my shuttle program to harvest and return all that junk to the surface!

[Manul]

8 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

I also like the idea of contracts building one one another. So, your mission to test a parachute, heat shield, and a probe core were successful. So, this next contract set may have more challenges - higher orbit, test an orbital camera on the satellite, test a mystery goo container, and onboard communications to send the results back to the KSC. Oh, and then recover the satellite. And so forth until the contracts require Kerballed space flight.

It's a boring human way of doing space program. The kerbal way is to strap Jeb to the biggest SRB available and hope he will survive.  

8 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

In real-world space programs, entire launch vehicles are tested at one time - not just an entire mission to test ONE part.

These contracts are given by part manufacturers, the manufacturer pays for testing their product and doesn't care about anything else, testing the launch vehicle is up to the ones who build and fly it aka the player's space agency. No one will pay you for testing your own vehicle, the reward is a vehicle itself.

Maybe it would be interesting to add some certification contracts that don't make profit but unlock the future missions. Like in the GAP contract pack there is a mission to land on the VAB helipad to be certified for helicopter-based search and rescue contracts. 
But the same rule is already used in stock: you don't get any orbital contracts until you reach orbit, and no contracts for new celestial bodies until you reach them

Edited March 9, 2023 by Manul

[Superfluous J]

11 hours ago, regex said:

The KSP1 contract system was absolute and utter trash gameplay, and I am not going to soften that assessment. We really shouldn't even be bringing it up for KSP2.

KSP2 needs to completely rethink how to guide players if it intends to use a "quest system" and that system should serve sandbox players who are more comfortable setting their own goals just as fully as it serves players who require guidance for satisfaction.

While I agree with the first paragraph, I'm a bit leery to on the second. I feel fairly strongly that the problems with KSP1's contract system are due to their strict adherence to the idea that a progressive, semi-scripted quest system would hinder those wishing for a more sandbox play style.

If you want to play sandbox, there is a perfectly functional sandbox mode in the game already. If you want progression with no limits, Science mode is a great fit. The contract system that fits what you desire most has totally failed you (and most everybody else), and if a better one has a more scripted game progression but is also awesome, I for one will welcome it.

[MarcAbaddon]

I only agree somewhat with the first paragraph. The KSP 1 contract system had issues and required an overhaul, but I think it served a decent purpose in the early game. It leads you to some important milestones, some of the more lucrative early game missions also teach you some important skills. I.e. with the orbital tourist contracts you have to experiment a bit with safe re-entry, rescuing stranded Kerbals teaches rendevousz and EVA, etc. It's really only when you unlock more planetary bodies that the system starts breaking down and the contracts all become very silly.

Even so the framework is decent enough for mods to be able to add a few better contracts on top. If you don't put rewards too high it also makes you think about not overengineering your rockets. I still mostly play in career mode myself.

Edited March 9, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[Moon Goddess]

I said several times through the last 3 years that every interview Nate sounded like he wanted to make factorio, not KSP.    Sadly looks like I was right

[Superfluous J]

41 minutes ago, Moon Goddess said:

I said several times through the last 3 years that every interview Nate sounded like he wanted to make factorio, not KSP.    Sadly looks like I was right

I would play the love out of Kerbal Factorio Program.

(Yes I wrote "love" there and not the word the forum software changes to "love")

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Moon Goddess said:

I said several times through the last 3 years that every interview Nate sounded like he wanted to make factorio, not KSP.    Sadly looks like I was right

Though I half agree with Superfluous J I wouldn't worry about it going full-factorio. They've said a bunch of times they'd like the mining and colony systems to serve the core gameplay of designing and flying spaceships rather than the other way around. I can't imagine we'd be dealing with belting spaghetti or resource chains involving dozens of intermediate products. It'll certainly be simpler than that. On the plus side though there are aspects of factorio that could actually make gameplay less repetitive. One thing folks above seem to miss is that after you design a resource harvester and go collect a resource you'll be able to automate that run so that it repeats on a schedule without manually babysitting every transfer. Thats sort of like factorio in that you can set things and let them run on their own, but the gameplay itself happens where KSP should happen--designing cool vessels in the VAB to accomplish a wide range of tasks and then flying them to their destination. You're still playing KSP, in-fact the potential design space and navigation puzzles become way, way wider and more interesting, but the resources become an open-ended, non-dictative driver for how you develop and explore rather than "Go test part X on planet Y."

Edited March 9, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Picard2]

2 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

One thing folks above seem to miss is that after you design a resource harvester and go collect a resource you'll be able to automate that run so that it repeats on a schedule without manual babysitting every transfer.

This is what I want, I think. Rather than 90% of gameplay being cargo hauling, the gameplay is developing the extraction and delivery systems which are then abstracted / simulated.

Is it something they've talked about much? I heard a bit of mention of it but not too familiar with what they're planning here. Will you see the vessels you designed flying around, or something much more abstracted where a viable craft / route is designed and the game just calculates x units of resource y over time t from your design?

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Picard2 said:

Is it something they've talked about much? I heard a bit of mention of it but not too familiar with what they're planning here. Will you see the vessels you designed flying around, or something much more abstracted where a viable craft / route is designed and the game just calculates x units of resource y over time t from your design?

I think all we know is that you'll have to do the resource run first yourself (the flying bit being what makes it KSP), that it'll work in principle for any vehicle, rovers, planes, even interstellar vessels. We don't know though whether the repeat vessels will be physically modeled and flying around or more abstract. Though I think the former could be really cool it poses some problems and I kind of suspect the resource transfers will be more virtual. I do hope though that scheduling repeat supply runs considers transfer windows and dV costs, and that the deliveries come in lump-sums based on those timings. That shouldn't be wildly difficult. Everything would be known about the route on the back-end and the game itself could suggest repeat rates based on flight duration. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[regex]

7 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

If you want to play sandbox, there is a perfectly functional sandbox mode in the game already. If you want progression with no limits, Science mode is a great fit. The contract system that fits what you desire most has totally failed you (and most everybody else), and if a better one has a more scripted game progression but is also awesome, I for one will welcome it.

NO! I don't want to play sandbox and I don't want to play "progression without limits"! I want a hard progression mode where I can set my own  goals and figure out how to achieve them on my own. What I don't need is guidance, a quest system or some sort of activity generator that I have to engage with to progress. This is something other games have achieved and I think it's possible for KSP as well.

[Kerbart]

34 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Though I half agree with Superfluous J I wouldn't worry about it going full-factorio. They've said a bunch of times they'd like the mining and colony systems to serve the core gameplay of designing and flying spaceships rather than the other way around. I can't imagine we'd be dealing with belting spaghetti or resource chains involving dozens of intermediate products. It'll certainly be simpler than that.

I try to be upbeat, but my imagination on what it will be has taken a bit of a dark turn since February 24. I hope it will be great but there seems to be a wide chasm between the picture that Nate and his merry men paint, and what we are getting. I really hope that's not the case with progression/explorer/belter mode.

[Pthigrivi]

18 minutes ago, regex said:

NO! I don't want to play sandbox and I don't want to play "progression without limits"! I want a hard progression mode where I can set my own  goals and figure out how to achieve them on my own. What I don't need is guidance, a quest system or some sort of activity generator that I have to engage with to progress. This is something other games have achieved and I think it's possible for KSP as well.

Well most games do build guidance into the progression system, and since the first-time user experience is so important to KSP I'd be surprised if the first several missions aren't designed in some ways to walk players through the basics. Even log-time KSP1 players might benefit from some missions demonstrating how setting up a colony or discovering a new star system works. 
 

8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I try to be upbeat, but my imagination on what it will be has taken a bit of a dark turn since February 24. I hope it will be great but there seems to be a wide chasm between the picture that Nate and his merry men paint, and what we are getting. I really hope that's not the case with progression/explorer/belter mode.

So far I feel like the systems they've talked about that we are currently seeing like the VAB and flight UI are massively improved, at least structurally. They're just buggy as all get out. There are also some big gaps like TWR info and broader flight planning functionality. I think in time that stuff will get cleaned up and fleshed out. The bones are there it just needs work. So far all of the things they've said about colonies and progression sound really smart to me and if those words match up to the finished experience the way procedural wings or (un-bugged) acceleration under timewarp have we're probably in pretty good shape. 
 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[regex]

9 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Well most games do build guidance into the progression system, and since the first-time user experience is so important to KSP I'd be surprised if the first several missions aren't designed in some ways to walk players through the basics. Even log-time KSP1 players might benefit from some missions demonstrating how setting up a colony or discovering a new star system works.

I don't know if you noticed but when you create a new save you can turn off new player guidance. I see no reason that can't apply to missions. We already have quality tutorials as well. Falling back on the new players excuse doesn't make sense here.