Career disapointemnt

[Scrogdog]

In game sub-orbital flights is the easiest thing I can think of. Chute, pod, SRB. Launch SRB, SRB runs out, launch chute.

Stop trying to compare KSP to real life. IT's A GAME, NOT A SIMULATOR

No kidding?

I am not advocating a simulator.

Now here's a question for you: WHY did humanity start with unmanned tests before manned? I'll give you a hint: It's NOT because unmanned is easier

Gee, thanks for the hint.

Easy. For the same reason that the phrase "back to the drawing board' exists. For the same reason that, even though we had experience in designing two other capsules, we lost three men to a design flaw in the Apollo capsule. For the same reason that the Dreamliner has problems.

Further, even if Kerbals are perfect, the program manager at KSC is not. How many times have you forgotten a part or done something stupid? I have a bunch of times. Just last night I realized that my rocket had a control ring where I'd meant to place a stack separator. Whoops!

Are you suggesting that in flipping CAREER mode that mistakes should have no consequence? Because that's all I'm saying. And if there is to be consequence, then test flights make sense in terms of what I said above, eventually in career mode trained and experienced Kerbals will be far more valuable than untrained ones.

[Scrogdog]

Why? It'd be exactly the same as having those flights unmanned. You can of course choose not to use it as you like but it seems to perfectly fit the desire for test flights that don't risk your kerbals lives. It's all in how you look at it.

Because, admittedly, I play in a role play sense. For example, I expect this game to have the following elements eventually; economics, 'naut training, and realistic re-entry. So, I sort of play as if those things are in effect now, so that I don't adopt bad habits and/or need to change how I play (much) as new things come.

So, for example, hitting revert avoids the economic penalty for failure, and also perhaps avoids a key death. Kerbal's do not respawn in my game.

Further, the way I play, the only thing that can re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere is either a space plane/shuttle or a capsule with its heat shield exposed. No Science Jr's with legs surviving fiery re-entry and like that.

It's your game, play it the way you want. And I'll do the same.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Scrogdog

[Sirrobert]

No kidding?

I am not advocating a simulator.

Gee, thanks for the hint.

Easy. For the same reason that the phrase "back to the drawing board' exists. For the same reason that, even though we had experience in designing two other capsules, we lost three men to a design flaw in the Apollo capsule. For the same reason that the Dreamliner has problems.

Further, even if Kerbals are perfect, the program manager at KSC is not. How many times have you forgotten a part or done something stupid? I have a bunch of times. Just last night I realized that my rocket had a control ring where I'd meant to place a stack separator. Whoops!

Are you suggesting that in flipping CAREER mode that mistakes should have no consequence? Because that's all I'm saying. And if there is to be consequence, then test flights make sense in terms of what I said above, eventually in career mode trained and experienced Kerbals will be far more valuable than untrained ones.

That's what revert flight is for. That's your test

[Scrogdog]

The "starting" tech is sort of implying they've done all the unmanned test flights up to this point, to get you that starter tech. Now, you're moving on to manned flights where actual research takes place.

No. To accomplish that, they would have had to also test every single part in every single combination that is possible. Again, we lost three astronauts to a design flaw in Apollo despite having flown capsules for years.

[Scrogdog]

That's what revert flight is for. That's your test

Like I said, it's your game so play the way you like.

To me, the use of the revert button invalidates the entire purpose of career mode, because then you take away the consequence of failure. Or, at least, the imagined future consequence.

[Sirrobert]

No. To accomplish that, they would have had to also test every single part in every single combination that is possible. Again, we lost three astronauts to a design flaw in Apollo despite having flown capsules for years.

There is no random failure in KSP. Every part works exactly as discribed, every time you use it. I THINK that means it's been tested very thoroughly. The only flaws are the ones you make, while putting different parts tougether, and steering

Like I said, it's your game so play the way you like.

To me, the use of the revert button invalidates the entire purpose of career mode, because then you take away the consequence of failure. Or, at least, the imagined future consequence.

The revert option is only available during launch. So it only helps to prevent errors in staging. It functions as your test launch if anything goes wrong. It's not going to save you from crashing into a planet, or running out of fuel while trying to come back home.

And weither you like it or not, that is it's function. The revert button is your test flight. In a test flight you find errors in staging, inballance, that stuf. If you find anything during your launch, you revert. AKA, it's your test. If everything goes right, you can tell yourself 'test already been done offscreen'. Or you can just revert anyway, if that makes you happy.

[BostLabs]

That's what revert flight is for. That's your test

That is certainly how I use it. However, I have been known for ignoring that it exists if something goes wrong, but it can still be savers. Come up with on on the spot escape plan or fight it up to orbit even though the full mission is scrubbed.

but if I've forgotten something important then I revert.

[Ralathon]

Like I said, it's your game so play the way you like.

To me, the use of the revert button invalidates the entire purpose of career mode, because then you take away the consequence of failure. Or, at least, the imagined future consequence.

Wasn't the whole point of the "revert flight" mechanic that it allows you to fly around the KSC for a bit without consequences, but as soon as you go too far away it disables itself? I know it currently doesn't work like that, but if I recall correctly that was how they advertised the idea when 0.21 came out.

[regex]

Wasn't the whole point of the "revert flight" mechanic that it allows you to fly around the KSC for a bit without consequences, but as soon as you go too far away it disables itself? I know it currently doesn't work like that, but if I recall correctly that was how they advertised the idea when 0.21 came out.

As soon as you switch away from the craft the option is disabled for that craft.

[Scrogdog]

The only flaws are the ones you make, while putting different parts tougether, and steering

Right. The exact same situation that existed before the Apollo 1 fire. But knowledge of the door mechanism did not prevent them from realizing that it should open out, not in. That's the exact point I am making; there is no way that testing a basic part accounts for how those parts are put together. Again, that is THE reason that the phrase "back to the drawing board" exists! It has nothing to do with whether or not an individual part failed, but rather the entirely new engineering consideration of what happens when it is used with something else.

And, SINCE that new combo MAY cost lives, why risk it? That's why there are test flights. I could have easily lost a Kerbal in the flight last night due to my human error. But it need not be so. I fix the things and save it, and when I'm pretty sure it's safe, THEN Kerbals fly! Instead it was a probe, the loss of which should still have an economic impact to my program. It will at some point, so I play as though it already does.

The revert option is only available during launch. So it only helps to prevent errors in staging. It functions as your test launch if anything goes wrong. It's not going to save you from crashing into a planet, or running out of fuel while trying to come back home.

And weither you like it or not, that is it's function. The revert button is your test flight. In a test flight you find errors in staging, inballance, that stuf. If you find anything during your launch, you revert. AKA, it's your test. If everything goes right, you can tell yourself 'test already been done offscreen'. Or you can just revert anyway, if that makes you happy.

Again, if you wish to play in this way, which avoids the consequence of failure, be my guest. To me, it's cheating. Why even play career?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Scrogdog

[4 IN 1]

We all sent Jeb, Bill and Bob first back in the days since 0.7.5, that is the only thing that matter.

[Sirrobert]

Again, if you wish to play in this way, which avoids the consequence of failure, be my guest. To me, it's cheating. Why even play career?

Right... did you miss the part about running out of fuel and having your kerbals stranded? Maybe you should try reading everything, instead of just the points you want.

Me using revert flight and you launching test flights is the EXACT SAME THING

And I play career cause I like the progress of the tech tree. You know your kerbals die just as dead if you crash them in sandbox right?

[AmpsterMan]

Unfortunately, right now there are no consequences for failed missions, there are no unmanned flights until tier 3, and I think it's pretty obvious that SQUAD is only basing itself very loosely on actual history prefering gameplay over historicity.

Though I too wish there were a way for the first few launches to be unmanned (a programable computer part would be awesome imho) I wouldn't be surprised if it never gets added in game, especially so early on.

Remember, when most of us started playing our first thoughts were to put a capsule on an SRB and launch straight up. Most of us forgot to put parachutes! This is what the first few tiers are supposed to be. If you notice, by the time we finish tier 3 most of the most basic and simple concepts of the game have been introduced.

Career mode is supposed to have a learning curve in the beginning in which the game is holding your hand, similar to the first few levels of Portal. After about tier 3 you get introduced to the larger picture more or less. I beleive this is by design.

Career mode, at least in this iteration, is not meant for end game users. And yet, many of us are finding the science and feeling of progression refreshing.

As it stands, the principles of career mode as a tutorial of sorts is here to stay.

So please, let's try to keep this discussion civil and on-topic by not discussing others prefered methods of playing the game.

Edited October 31, 2013 by AmpsterMan

[Odo]

Intentional. The career mode is designed so it doesn't overwhelm you with billions of parts and functions so it smooths out the difficulty curve a bit. If you want free design without limitations you'll either have to unlock the tree or play sandbox.

Gameplay > Realism. For a probe you need charge, energy generation, SAS and separate science modules. For a capsule you just need a kerbal (which is included). It makes sense to get the easy option before getting you complex one. When you do get probe cores you can use them to save significant weight at the cost of extra complexity.

That's something that'll likely be included in the future. Until then you can play with the mission controller mod, which adds exactly what you propose.

You're probably not alone. But your reasoning is very poorly thought out and this discussion has been done to death.

Completely agree with this entirely.

[4 IN 1]

KSP won't be KSP if the first few flight was not preformed by the little green man in the orange full pressure suits looking terrified(or in JEB case: YEAAAAAAAH!), and I think this is the way Squad intented to keep.

Besides, unlike the blue shirt cannon fodders, Jeb, Bill and Bob have unlimited numbers of clone available, who cares if they blow up? I am sure Jeb won't mind that.

Edited October 31, 2013 by 4 IN 1

[Pulstar]

I wouldn't say unprofitable but it really is beating the dead horse at this point. Same issues are mentioned, same opinions/examinations are made, same solutions are proposed while some of them have probably already been fixed in the current dev build. We had two weeks to do debate it after all. The "no probes at start" issue was even discussed before the update got released.

[JumpsterG]

As it is now, a new player's first launch involves a 3-piece rocket with a smiling Jebediah in the corner window. Upon crashing this first rocket, the player learns one of two things:

-Oh, I don't have to worry about Kerbals, I always get a new one, so I can focus on the rockets themselves.

-OMG, I killed him! I vow from this day forward to protect them at all costs!

I'm a big advocate of "play it your way". Players currently have the freedom to go either route, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Let the newbies learn from their first 15 minutes of reckless flying and proceed from there.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

And what science did it do? It sent a beeping radio signal. That's all. In game terms it was a piece of debris. No way of controlling it at all. It does not compare to probe cores.

*cough*explorer I, the lunikhods, Viking 1/2, voyager I/II, the surveyors ect*cough*

Yea, cause man have Definitely when't to the moon before robots and voyager II was completely useless.

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not a huge fan of career mode yet. It isn't balanced very well in my opinion and there's not a lot about it that compels me yet. I know it will get better, so this isn't really a complaint, just a statement of how I feel on it.

[Sirrobert]

*cough*explorer I, the lunikhods, Viking 1/2, voyager I/II, the surveyors ect*cough*

Yea, cause man have Definitely when't to the moon before robots and voyager II was completely useless.

And what does that have to do with Kerbals?

Or Sputnik, for that matter

[Sof]

People seem to forget they are flying little green men with giant heads building rockets out of dumpster findings on a tiny planet with the same gravity as Earth, in a solar system that would fling itself apart if it existed in our universe.

The only realism part is a basic orbit simulator.

Why the heck is it a problem if they send Kerbals before remote control probes? If anything, that fits better with the kerbal way.

[Skyrunner27]

As I have said before in similar arguments. If you had a probe first most of the tech would already be unlocked if flew it. The idea is when you get to the controls that is basic AI A kerbal is a computer who doesn't need to be invented.

[JSD]

The most disappointing thing about career right now is the science. As weird as it sounds. Right now the only point of doing science is to collect some points. To go further on the tech tree. Science itself isn't fun anymore. You put on some weird science stuff, fly to the mun, do a random experiment (all science/experiment is the same. Another disappointment..), go back home, and bam! Points. Now you can "research" a ladder. I don't know, for me it's not that great. Hopefully the next upcoming updates will fix that kind of career play somehow..

[Luckless]

The most disappointing thing about career right now is the science. As weird as it sounds. Right now the only point of doing science is to collect some points. To go further on the tech tree. Science itself isn't fun anymore. You put on some weird science stuff, fly to the mun, do a random experiment (all science/experiment is the same. Another disappointment..), go back home, and bam! Points. Now you can "research" a ladder. I don't know, for me it's not that great. Hopefully the next upcoming updates will fix that kind of career play somehow..

Science is a score... Personally I like to go big and challenge myself to collect the most science in a single mission plan that I can.

[JSD]

Great, you do that. I mean that. But everyone plays this game on a different way. For me the science vs tech tree kind of kills the fun. That's all I said. You maybe have a huge imagination. Good for you. I'm sober on the other hand. Science, as the way it is, is nothing more than a tool to unlock something new on the tech tree. It's no fun. It's something you HAVE to do, to get further into the tech tree. Not because it's that a big of a deal/achievement. If you can fly to the mun, you can do science there. If you can go to Duna, then you can do science there. The Science itself is just a tool. If you go to Duna, and you do science, then you do it because you need science points to unlock something. If you already unlock everything, doing science it pointless, not fun, means nothing. If you reach the end of the tech tree, you do not a single peace of science again. Do a sandbox mode play, and you know what I mean. Science means nothing there. Science it a tool, not a feature. And that, is kind of disappointing..

Edited October 31, 2013 by JSD