Why careermode?

[Wice]

I was wondering: Why are the devs focussing on careermode now? Wouldn't it make more sense to implement things like tweakables first and get all the mechanics (resources, re-entry damage etc) in order and improve the editor (sub-symmetry, multiple parents for parts etc) in order to make the core aspects of the game function before they start making the career?

I'm not saying that's what they should do, I'm just wondering wether or not that would make more sense. What do you guys think?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Wice

[allmappedout]

This is why

[Beeman]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Besides, there's probably at least a few people holding off on playing much KSP until they get career mode at least somewhat functional. I know I was...but then .21 hit and I started playin' again.

[Wice]

This is why

Ok, I get that but the effort they are not putting into the mechanics now, will have to be put in eventually, so there's no benefit, right?

[Anton P. Nym]

Ok, I get that but the effort they are not putting into the mechanics now, will have to be put in eventually, so there's no benefit, right?

"No benefit" is going a bit too far there; as Beeman said some folks are waiting until there is a career mode to try the game, so adding one now will expand the test base further and make it more likely bugs will get spotted before KSP goes to v1.0. I also suspect that laying the foundations for career mode now is important to ensure there isn't some weird conflict with flight and building... if, for instance, limiting availability to parts according to a tech tree does something weird to the VAB menu it's better to find out now while there's plenty of time to fix that.

-- Steve

[jcraft]

Also career mode is a perfect way to made game more accessible for newcomers, right now when you're starting the game amount of content (just look at amount of parts we have right now for example) can be quite overwhelming for a new player, and with gradual progression of career mode, starting small and slowly unlocking new possibilities there is no such problem and game is far easier to get into as opposed to "here's loads of parts and whole solar system - go play with it" we have now. Maxmaps (Squad's PR manager) talked about it in myndflame interview on Twitch.TV (link - http://www.twitch.tv/myndflame/b/426248761), simply put - they want finish career mode first to make KSP more accessible to newcomers and then move on to adding big tasty content

Edited August 6, 2013 by jcraft

[Wice]

You all raise very good points, I guess careermode isn't so bad after all I still hope tweakables come sort of soon-ish though...

[jcraft]

I still hope tweakables come sort of soon-ish though...

I hope for it too, for big stuff like resource mining, proper aerodynamics and new planets (and star systems perhaps in the more distant future) I can wait... but tweakables would be a really nice thing to have sooner

Edited August 6, 2013 by jcraft

[Wice]

I hope for it too, for big stuff like resource mining, proper aerodynamics and new planets (and star systems perhaps in the more distant future) I can wait... but tweakables would be a really nice thing to have sooner

Exactly, I'd like resources and life support as well but those things can wait, tweakables would make building so much better

[Mr Shifty]

Exactly, I'd like resources and life support as well but those things can wait, tweakables would make building so much better

+1 here ... I'd actually like to see improvements to the editor all around: filtering and sorting, folders for craft file storage, ability to save global crafts (rather than tied to a save file), stock sub-assembly capability, dynamic part loading, ability to change root part, display part info when clicked in the assembly area, parts list for vessel assembly in progress, horizontal camera translation, better staging editor, etc etc

[TouhouTorpedo]

If we're gonna talk making the game more accessible, I think sorting out the single node attachment behaviour is what needs doing next. Because it frankly doesn't work on a bigger scale. Strutting helps sure, but its a very tricky thing to get right, and means big rockets aren't very accessible. When you have made a big rocket that works, Typically its a mess of structural elements and girders with more resemblance to architecture than a rocket.

I hope this is something that gets looked into very soon. Its absolutely neccesary if they are ever to exceed 2.5m diameter parts anyway, As anyone who has tried 3.75m mod parts would know - they wobble terribly.

[jcraft]

+1 here ... I'd actually like to see improvements to the editor all around: filtering and sorting, folders for craft file storage, ability to save global crafts (rather than tied to a save file), stock sub-assembly capability, dynamic part loading, ability to change root part, display part info when clicked in the assembly area, parts list for vessel assembly in progress, horizontal camera translation, better staging editor, etc etc

Fact that Squad is focusing on career mode right now doesn't have to mean that they cannot deliver smaller things with it. We got reworked SAS in 0.21 for example, and from last minute - Mu wrote something about working on new editor upgrades in latest KSP Weekly.

Edited August 6, 2013 by jcraft

[allmappedout]

+1 here ... I'd actually like to see improvements to the editor all around: filtering and sorting, folders for craft file storage, ability to save global crafts (rather than tied to a save file), stock sub-assembly capability, dynamic part loading, ability to change root part, display part info when clicked in the assembly area, parts list for vessel assembly in progress, horizontal camera translation, better staging editor, etc etc

Having read the latest KSP weekly, it sounds like you may get at least part of your wish...

[Diche Bach]

If instead of doing a continuation of yet another advance to flight on the next update, we turn aside and work on an area of the game that's almost completely undeveloped at this point, our next update will bring in a massive amount of result for the same amount of effort that it would take to implement a comparatively tiny feature further along the 'beaten paths' of the game

I very much respect and appreciate how Harvester thinks! He knows what he is doing! Moreover, he makes a very compelling argument as much.

Lets all keep in mind guys that: It took Bethesda, what? 10 or 15 years to progress from Morrowind through Oblivion and to Skyrim (not that everyone would necessarily agree that was a steady improvement across the board). Yes, I know that there were other TES games before Morrowind, and no I'm not firm on those dates. Suffice to say, it was a LOT of years in the making.

Truly GREAT games take any iterations to manifest. I think between Civ 1 and Civ 4 (the last one I'd consider an improvement on the preceding on) it must've been what? 20 years!?

Lets hope that KSP proves to be that kind of long-lived EPIC game, that Squad is swimming in enough cash to hire as many new folks as they want, and that the mod community continues to thrive as much as it amazingly does given this is an Alpha stage game.

All this to say: if something on your wish list doesn't make it into the next update because a major untouched area of the game needs some attention, well, just try to be patient

[Person012345]

I was wondering: Why are the devs focussing on careermode now? Wouldn't it make more sense to implement things like tweakables first and get all the mechanics (resources, re-entry damage etc) in order and improve the editor (sub-symmetry, multiple parents for parts etc) in order to make the core aspects of the game function before they start making the career?

I'm not saying that's what they should do, I'm just wondering wether or not that would make more sense. What do you guys think?

I've been eagerly waiting career mode since they put the button in. I think they should add some sort of rudimentary career mode ASAP. I want limits and challenges. I see no point whatsoever in having resources without career mode. In fact I find the concept detrimental to the game. My opinion is that it makes sense to put things in to maximize the fun.

[Wice]

+1 here ... I'd actually like to see improvements to the editor all around: filtering and sorting, folders for craft file storage, ability to save global crafts (rather than tied to a save file), stock sub-assembly capability, dynamic part loading, ability to change root part, display part info when clicked in the assembly area, parts list for vessel assembly in progress, horizontal camera translation, better staging editor, etc etc

If we're gonna talk making the game more accessible, I think sorting out the single node attachment behaviour is what needs doing next. Because it frankly doesn't work on a bigger scale. Strutting helps sure, but its a very tricky thing to get right, and means big rockets aren't very accessible. When you have made a big rocket that works, Typically its a mess of structural elements and girders with more resemblance to architecture than a rocket.

I hope this is something that gets looked into very soon. Its absolutely neccesary if they are ever to exceed 2.5m diameter parts anyway, As anyone who has tried 3.75m mod parts would know - they wobble terribly.

Both these suggestions would make the game a lot more accesible as well. Ive seen a few friends try KSP but bail on it because they couldn't really get used to the editor

[jwenting]

single node attachment system is a limitation of the Unity engine AFAIK, nothing Squad can do about that.

And no, just because you have some pet thing you'd like to see doesn't make it a valid business case for the devs to drop everything and implement it NOW.

Most likely it's just that, a pet thing for a few people that makes very little sense business wise to implement unless there's some spare time after implementing the things that actually bring in extra sales enough to make them worth the effort financially.

[TouhouTorpedo]

single node attachment system is a limitation of the Unity engine AFAIK, nothing Squad can do about that.

And no, just because you have some pet thing you'd like to see doesn't make it a valid business case for the devs to drop everything and implement it NOW.

Most likely it's just that, a pet thing for a few people that makes very little sense business wise to implement unless there's some spare time after implementing the things that actually bring in extra sales enough to make them worth the effort financially.

Wrong, its not a limitation. If that was true, then struts wouldn't even be possible. It'd be relatively simple to say, add three virtual point attachments around that single attachment node used now, so that each of these three virtual attachments can resist torque properly through the rocket.

Its actually something I'm considering as a mod to look into, but because I'm not devving the game engine and would have to mod every single stock config file to add it in, or shoehorn another module that adds this module to every part added automatically, it'd be a big undertaking from a modders perpective. But if the game engine was changed so attachment is done at 4 instead of 3 points, (central shown node, Y axis displaced point, Z axis displaced point, X axis displaced point) that wouldn't be too complex and a massive improvement.

Honestly, I challenge one of the devs to add this and see how it behaves. The Strut code could be shoehorned into the attachment node code to easy make this possible and bring it into the next version.

[Abram730]

A) Make a sim.

make it fun.

C) Profit.

A) functional but need work.

Absent(career mode). I'm talking from a broad appeal perspective. I am having a blast but most people are not creative thinkers and need a breadcrumb trail to follow and some drama. The Kerbals will make it fun for the masses and the career needs smaller steps with more help. Also I'd like the economics of gaining constraints of a funding budget.

They need to have the underlying game finished for beta. At that point it's all about optimization and new parts, ext.

[Tw1]

Something I've wanted to see in the editors for a while is some sort of system to help line up parts with the center of mass, or central axis, or other things.

Maybe something like this could be made. That'd make several things much easier.

[innovine]

The question that interests me is... Will career mode offer anything more besides being 'Sandbox with restrictions'?

I already have plenty of restrictions, imposed by my imagination and knowledge of orbital mechanics.. adding arbitrary economic cost restrictions doesn't interest me compared to those.

Also, right now, the most difficult area (by a LONG, LONG way) for me, is not orbital mechanics, it's not rendezvous or docking, it's not mission planning nor space plane design, its not the lack of science parts or re-entry. The thing making Kerbal Space Program difficult for me IS THE FRAME RATE LAG* when the part count goes over a couple of hundred. This is limiting my mission complexity more than anything else.

The APPEAL of KSP imho is entirely in the freedom of the sandbox environment, and these forums are testament to the fact that is is already a very playable, fun game. Dumbing it down by adding unnecessary economic costs and whatnot does not really seem fun. What's next, simulating the political and propaganda value of a space race? That is, after all, the major driving economic force. Simulating the military influence on rocketry? That too is very important for economics.

*I am not asking for miracles, but I think there is a LOT to optimize in relation to the physics. Why are all the physics calculations being run when I approach an inert space station, for example? I'm not imparting forces on it, some bounding box collision detection and rendering is all that's required, until I impact.

[jcraft]

The question that interests me is... Will career mode offer anything more besides being 'Sandbox with restrictions'?

Actual sense of progression? Additional challenge when trying to fit your missions into accectable budget, actual consquences of your failures - in sandbox when you strand a kerbal on Duna it's just "oh well, I just get another one and do a rescue mission" but in career failed mission going to have negative effect on your space program reputation... and rescue mission going to cost you more money. Yeah, sandbox is fun as it is but is like playing some Sim City game with crime rate and disasters turn off and also with unlimited budget - its fun to watch your city grow, but is much more fun doing it when you must consider money as a key factor and struggle with various of your city problems.

Sandbox in KSP is like FPS with unlimited ammo, RPG when you start with best equipment and max character level, racing game when in the beginning you already have access to all cars - it all can be fun, but it never will be as fun as with some rules and limits imposed on the player.

Dumbing it down by adding unnecessary economic costs and whatnot does not really seem fun.

Adding economic aspect to the KSP is something that can hardly be defined as "dumbing down" quite opposite in fact - it is making game more complex and challenging, but definetely not "dumbed down".

And just something that I'm observing in this community for some time - many people seems to forget (or maybe they just simply don't aware of it) that KSP was basically from start planned and build as a game where career mode is the main game, not sandbox - after all it is a Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Space Sandbox. Sandbox its just... let's call it a "basket" when everything made by devs is throw in and player can play with it without any rules and limits (just like creative mode in Minecraft). If you don't like playing with economic aspects, R&D and bunch of other stuff unique to career mode you still can play sandbox - it is not going anywhere.

As for the lag issue - keep in mind that KSP is long time from finish, and there also problems of game engine (Unity) limitations when it comes to calculating physics. But I hope for a day when I can build 500 part spacestation, and then fly to it with my 100 part spaceplane and all within stable fluid 60 frames per second... maybe someday

Edited August 7, 2013 by jcraft
minor corrections

[innovine]

Actual sense of progression? Additional challenge when trying to fit your missions into accectable budget, actual consquences of your failures - in sandbox when you strand a kerbal on Duna it's just "oh well, I just get another one and do a rescue mission"

Actually, my first (and only) Kerbal to Duna was not stranded, he made it safely back to Kerbin. I spend a lot of time testing, and then sending research probes, work out TWR and estimate fuel levels etc etc I basically fly my big missions a bit like NASA would, and can't see how budget restrictions would make it any more exciting or challenging. It'd just encourage me to take shortcuts and skip some of the test flights...

I see your point regarding SimCity, but for me at least, KSP is all about designing my own missions, figuring out how to achieve a goal. That's not the same as avoiding the inbuilt problems. It's about creating my own restrictions, deciding on my own goals, and deciding on how to reach them.

after all it is a Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Space Sandbox

But I am already running my own program!! I make lifters to bring my landers up to 10k and drop them for tests. I build rendezvous craft in Kerbin orbit and test fly them before sending them further. Now I have a large, multipurpose station built, with a variety of lander engines, ascent stages, rovers and satellites, and a tug to rearrange them on the fly. I wanna send the whole thing to Jool and build suitable missions when I get there. (Lag is killing this project though...)

Alternatively, I could just keep putting Kerbals in cans and shooting them at a destination until someone eventually makes it. That's a space program too. Is career going to help us develop one and not the other?

But I hope for a day when I can build 500 part spacestation, and then fly to it with my 100 part spaceplane and all within stable fluid 60 frames per second... maybe someday

That's the game I want to see. Career could easily wait IMHO.

Edited August 7, 2013 by innovine

[Tw1]

Actual sense of progression? Additional challenge when trying to fit your missions into accectable budget, actual consquences of your failures - in sandbox when you strand a kerbal on Duna it's just "oh well, I just get another one and do a rescue mission" but in career failed mission going to have negative effect on your space program reputation... and rescue mission going to cost you more money.

That's the sort of thing I'm hoping the career mode is like. Like sandbox, but you must provide funds, train kerbals, and take care to get them there and home safe.

The game might suggest goals, and record achievements, but you aren't following a set list of missions, but making your own.

Hopefully there will be things you can achieve, like science collection, or other more abstract goals that encourage you to find clever solutions, and work things out yourself, rather than things that instruct you to do tasks. "Go Mine a mineral on Duna" etc.

Like simcity, where you need to manage funds, power, education, etc, but still have a fair amount of choice what you do with your city. Just some things work, and some things don't.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Tw1

[jcraft]

I basically fly my big missions a bit like NASA would, and can't see how budget restrictions would make it any more exciting or challenging. It'd just encourage me to take shortcuts and skip some of the test flights...

That's how you see it, but my point of view is quite different. I definitely can without problems send manned (kerbaled?) mission to Duna, a then get them back... but I wonder if I can do this within a certain budget limit. For now you have to consider basically two things when making a mission - "do I have enough fuel to make it?", and "aren't this going to explode?", when career mode kicks in you also have to plan your mission that way in which your space program not going bankrupt right away, because everything going to cost you (lots of) money. And there's also fact that in career mode we don't going to have all parts available on start, right now we can just slap most efficient stuff on a vessel and call it a day, in career mode you must unlock more advanced parts by research (and research will probably require some things to do before you can do it, not just click this button on tech-tree and wait until your scientists finish it), and this advanced parts probably going to cost you more... so yeah. I only see more challenge and fun here.

I see your point regarding SimCity, but for me at least, KSP is all about designing my own missions, figuring out how to achieve a goal. That's not the same as avoiding the inbuilt problems. It's about creating my own restrictions, deciding on my own goals, and deciding on how to reach them.

Career is not going to be some kind of linear story campaign. At start most likely we not going to have lots of possibilities but as we progress game will start to be more and more open. You still going to decide on your own goals and how to reach them, just this time taking in mind other variables like budget and available parts.

But I am already running my own program!! I make lifters to bring my landers up to 10k and drop them for tests. I build rendezvous craft in Kerbin orbit and test fly them before sending them further. Now I have a large, multipurpose station built, with a variety of lander engines, ascent stages, rovers and satellites, and a tug to rearrange them on the fly. I wanna send the whole thing to Jool and build suitable missions when I get there. (Lag is killing this project though...)

Alternatively, I could just keep putting Kerbals in cans and shooting them at a destination until someone eventually makes it. That's a space program too. Is career going to help us develop one and not the other?

Yes, you are running your space program but you are not limited by anything beyond game technical limits and your imagination, and that's not a full space program experience from my perspective. I want to consider budget, research and my astronauts training and bunch of other stuff when playing this game - without it there its just not enough of space program in the space program for me:)

That's the game I want to see. Career could easily wait IMHO.

Its not like Squad going to make whole career mode before moving on to other areas of the game, it just simply impossible. For example: you cannot have full career mode without complete research tree, and you cannot have complete research tree without implementing full set of parts into a game, and you cannot implement full set of parts into a game without implementing resource mining into game, and so on. In time to progress development of career mode Squad will have to focus on different areas of the game, it is simple like that.

Edited August 7, 2013 by jcraft
minor corrections