This game is for *massive* nerds

[gtmattz]

As to the title of the thread, I disagree. I don't think the mass of the nerd has anything to do with it; I'm very skinny.

For this, you deserve a squeeze bulb of tang and a packet of freeze dried icecream... Well played, sir, well played...

[samstarman5]

For this, you deserve a squeeze bulb of tang and a packet of freeze dried icecream... Well played, sir, well played...

Bring enough for everybody!

[Wallace]

I'm not sure what the issue is here? Solar panels too far off? wut? I landed on the Mun with just batteries, and did a flyby of the Mun with just pod power, I'm not sure what you are using all that power for, you are probably doing too many transmissions, just go on a free return to the Mun and bring all the data back, you'll have science coming out of the wazoo.

Also, you do realise that Gemini was not some kind of basic monkey-on-a-rocket level of technology? It was instigated specifically to develop the technology required to get the the Moon, the Mercury program only managed to last a day in orbit, and they did 6 manned flights to get up to that level, John Glen was back on the ground in less than 5 hours, Yuri Gagarin only stayed up for 1 hour 48 minutes. The MK1 pod I see as being equivalent to the first Mercury pod or the first version of the Volstok pod, and thus I have no issue with the crappy battery level, it's a crap pod, if you want it better, then attach some batteries, they are not too far down the tree.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Wallace

[nadreck]

I like the difficulty level of this first iteration of career mode, but yes I am a space nerd and have been all my life. I only started playing this in 0.21.1 and career mode made perfect sense to me, I chose to try it stock and give up mechJeb because I wanted to prove something to myself.

However enough about me, I just want to posit about what sort of people find career mode, or even KSP in general fun, or not fun. How one deals with frustration and failure and how one responds to learning are somehow at the crux of this. There are people who get their enjoyment in KSP in the time they spend planning and thinking then having that borne out proving their ability to understand. Others are the shoot from the hip, charge down the corridor at the stormtroopers type who accept failure as a matter of course and who simply try again after blow ups, they get their fun not because they visualized an outcome and went through an iterative process to get there. It is possible that some people who might enjoy one of those two styles tries the other first.

As for the charge that there is not enough documentation or enough learning structure built into the game, it seems to me that comes from a level of frustration, not so much correlated to the nerdiness of the player. Sure someone who can Google up an answer to their immediate question (which in general I have been able to when I couldn't figure something out) has more fun and being able to to navigate searching as research tool is a little nerdy I guess, but the fact is I have a lot of space knowledge and needed to do the googling, I still haven't mastered landing winged craft in KSP and I have my pilot's license. Others are stymied by the concepts of orbital mechanics, some with the requirement to think symetrically in designing boosters. However, the common threads I see for (and in) complaints are about:

1) getting a leg up in terms of learning how KSP and it's underlying physics work in a way that doesn't conflict with the users learning style and doesn't mess with their frustration tolerance levels

2) being oriented towards a specific goal (SSTO, orbital space plane, docking, landing, etc) and becoming increasingly frustrated by failure

3) seeing a lack of specific reward (particularly pre 0.22) beyond self actualization for in game accomplishements

4) a lack of gamelike rules and constraints, while some of us simply add our own (I have read people who have added rules for the use of Nerva engines or RTG, many of us try like hell never to "terminate" debris or missions, some expend inordinate efforts down to restarting from scratch if we kill a Kerbal) the point though is that many complain that the rules aren't there.

and just since 0.22 came out:

5) feeling constrained by career mode. Why there is a feeling of constraint has to do I think with people comparing themselves with the most vocal, nerdy and successful of us, who, when we found we were given a set of rules under which there was a clear goal but constraints on achieving the goal we embraced and then started making it even tougher on ourselves. Those of us who already had some added rules (like point 4 above) tried to apply those rules, beyond that many of us dreamed up new ones. Then we were vocal about it, talked about our success and I feel that may have left many feeling like their enjoyment of the game was tied to following the same path or having the same enthusiasms.

[brusura]

your lack of inventive is disturbing , seriously, things can get done in many different ways even with the basic parts, just need more time and fantasy for career mode

[vetrox]

I still maintain that the game isnt particularly hard.

Im not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed but i like spacey things (planets are perty!)

I started playing with no knowledge of orbital mechanics at all. So before I did anything at all, I did the in game tutorials and I've managed to work it all out (trust me I'm no genius). Sometimes I wonder if forums have become somewhere to go before you even start to try to work something out.

So the OP keeps running out of electricity and is struggling. He must be doing something wrong but instead of trying to work it out he has come straight to the forum (not nesesarily a bad thing) to find out how to sort it. However he has the same mentality as alot of the cod style gamers of "I cant do it so the game is only for -insert stereotype here-"

TO the OP: Play sandbox a bit more before delving into the career. You will have to set your own goals though (which i think is why alot of the people who dont get on with ksp leave) The stock Kerbal x Craft is pretty damn capable and i learnt alot just by using that and flying around with it. i dont think that has solar panels on it (i might be wrong though)

I dont care what anyone says but the career isnt for newer player in its current state. Its an added challenge not a tutorial

Edited November 1, 2013 by vetrox

[palker]

I would not say massive i knew nothing of spaceflight and orbital mechanics when i started up. All you really need is watch few youtube tutorials and do the ingame tutorials and you are good to go. Anyway i am now 3 nodes from unlocking the entire tech three and i think it was actually too easy to get there.

[Guest]

I dont care what anyone says but the career isnt for newer player in its current state. Its an added challenge not a tutorial

Career mode doesn't add any challenge at all for experienced players in its current iteration; it's a joke. Hell, even changing the tech tree and reducing the gains just makes the game "grindy". It's not like an inventive player with knowledge of the game can't advance (blow) through it at a reasonable (laughably quick) pace. If you want real challenge you need to mod this game closer to a simulator (and there are plenty of mods that allow you to do that).

For new players? I can see both sides of the argument but some concepts are quite unclear (how to gather science, biomes, etc...) It seems like Squad is changing their thinking on the tech tree being a "tutorial" so I'm going to revert my judgement and see what comes out of 0.23, but for now there is no compelling reason at all to play career mode; calling it a challenge is kind of funny.

[Beachernaut]

I think the root of the issue is the steep learning curve of KSP. I have a couple friends who tried the demo and were discouraged by the learning curve of the game. To that end, I think the career starts off rather well by limiting parts and making it easier to build a basic rocket. I also agree that some hints and more involved tutorials are a good idea in the finished game. That said, none of us know for sure (other than the devs) what the final game will contain on that subject. The power problem in particular is a playing style error rather than a game/design issue. It's a challenge, to find the correct way to play through that particular part of the game. When the player learns how much science they are missing by transmitting, most likely they will stop transmitting all together until they reach the moon and then further out.

[Fourjays]

It isn't a popular opinion, but I find the new career mode irritating as well. The problem for me is the way the career mode and tech tree currently function feels like it forces you to play one of two ways:

1) Spam science. This is what I did initially while trying to play it the way I always have done (little steps, like a real space program), and I quickly realised you have to repeat missions several times to get enough science to unlock the next tier, which probably doesn't have anything you want anyway. After a few missions I noticed I could do all the science things in one mission and get more science that way. But even that gets boring quite quickly because you just repeat it endlessly to try and get the science you need to unlock the part you want. Not to mention the tier order that forces me to do manned missions first (yea, yea, "it's Kerbal space program not human space program"... I'd rather it was my space program).

2) Be a pro. Send a manned mission to Duna with nothing more than a command pod, 20x the same fuel tank, an antenna and some chutes. Congratulations, your an ace. Have bag loads of science. You'll probably completely unlock the tech tree in two missions time. Then what?

I love the science implementation (the flavour texts are a great idea), but the tech tree just feels like a bad mechanic at the moment. Rather than rewarding success, it just seems to make the game linear and repetitive. I'm not entirely sure the tech tree is the right mechanic to begin with, but it would be a whole lot better if the tech tree unlocked functionality instead of parts. It wouldn't need to be as long - and would cost more for each tier - but it would allow players freedom to run their space program while providing something genuinely new to play with at each tier (instead of "yay, I can now use 1 large fuel tank instead of 3", which is only rewarding to our computers).

[vetrox]

Career mode doesn't add any challenge at all for experienced players in its current iteration -snip- compelling reason at all to play career mode; calling it a challenge is kind of funny.

I would disagree. I'm by no means a pro but i would say I'm fairly experienced at 400 hours. Whereas in sandbox I build ships willy nilly. In career you start by getting to the mun in ingenious ways. I didnt say it was "a challenge" i said its "an added challenge" And for the newer player (which is more what i was getting at) Its an extreme challenge (TO THE XTREME!!!!!)

Before career mode the lifters i used to get my ships to duna would have to have at least one mainsail. In career mode I have done it with just skippers. Maybe no feat for the best players but I thought it was pretty good.

However, at the moment the career still serves no real purpose. You hardly "run" a space programme. The game hasnt got to that stage yet.

I do agree with whoever said there is a lack of direction though and that should seriously be addressed in the next update. It might stop all these whiney "I hate career mode its a joke" threads that occasionaly pop up from new players

Also, with regards to making it more of a simulator to make it harder. This is definatley something that should be addressed with difficulty modes. I wouldnt say FAR makes the game a challenge but it does add a new gameplay mechanic.

You also have to remember there are people who find docking and rondevous the hardest things in the universe. So whats a challenge differs from person to person and whats fun differs from person to person. Some people enjoy the game with mechjeb, others hate it. The game hasnt got to the point where it can apeal to everyone (well everyone who likes spacey type stuff) and because its such a niche game its going to have to work hard at it.

Another thing i see (whilst I'm here) is people not having enough stuff to do and complaining that they are bored after maybe 10 hours or so. TBH i can blast through alot of single player fps games in 6-12 hours. So if you're bored you should just consider the game completed (i.e you have finished the game) and move on.

Edited November 1, 2013 by vetrox
Added some need clarification!

[Nobody]

To the OP: Yes this game is for nerds with an interest in space. A few more shocking revelations in gaming.

• Madden games are for people who like football.
  
• FIFA games are for people who like football.
  
• NBA games are for people who like basketball.
  

Part of your problem in the game is that your trying to copy experienced players who are spamming collect and transmit to skip content that new players such as yourself need to play through to learn. Something mentioned in the new daily section of the forum, the developers are fixing the transmission spam so that won't be possible when the next update comes.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/56141-The-Daily-Kerbal-First-Edition

Life and space exploration are about the journey not the destination. One small step for you leads to one giant leap for Kerbal kind.

[Whackjob]

What's wrong with being a nerd? I embrace my nerdery. I make nerdery work. I'm militant about my nerdery.

Nerds make things happen.

[vetrox]

Another thing i want to point out is "nerd" is a very juvenile term. I dont think i see adults label other adults as such.

If i said i loved astronomy back in school I get labeld a nerd.

I say at work that i love astronomy and you get to have a conversation about it

[giltirn]

It isn't a popular opinion, but I find the new career mode irritating as well. The problem for me is the way the career mode and tech tree currently function feels like it forces you to play one of two ways:

1) Spam science. This is what I did initially while trying to play it the way I always have done (little steps, like a real space program), and I quickly realised you have to repeat missions several times to get enough science to unlock the next tier, which probably doesn't have anything you want anyway. After a few missions I noticed I could do all the science things in one mission and get more science that way. But even that gets boring quite quickly because you just repeat it endlessly to try and get the science you need to unlock the part you want. Not to mention the tier order that forces me to do manned missions first (yea, yea, "it's Kerbal space program not human space program"... I'd rather it was my space program).

2) Be a pro. Send a manned mission to Duna with nothing more than a command pod, 20x the same fuel tank, an antenna and some chutes. Congratulations, your an ace. Have bag loads of science. You'll probably completely unlock the tech tree in two missions time. Then what?

I'm hardly a pro at this game, but I have almost unlocked the entire tech tree without ever having to repeat a mission. Heck, I didn't even really do anything on Kerbin, just a crew report and straight up-and-down type job to get the first tier unlocked, then I did a suborbital hop, an orbit, a Mun flyby, a Minmus flyby, a Mun landing, a Minmus Landing then a Duna landing. I am planning a more substantial mission to the Jool system now. Never have I felt like I was grinding (apart from having to repeat transmissions multiple times).

[Guest]

I didnt say it was "a challenge" i said its "an added challenge"

The problem is that Career mode in its current incarnation doesn't add any challenge. It's an exercise in using different parts until you unlock the ones you want by collecting numbers, big deal. Maybe I'm used to that because I build ships of all sizes suited to the mission at hand and not ridiculous catch-all monstrosities (not discounting Whackjob here, that man challenges himself in other ways than people like me) vOv Like I said, there is no compelling reason to play it at the moment, and for new players it seems to only add confusion.

I do agree with whoever said there is a lack of direction though and that should seriously be addressed in the next update. It might stop all these whiney "I hate career mode its a joke" threads that occasionaly pop up from new players.

Hopefully you're not looking for Squad to give you "missions" in Career mode, that would kill the entire feel of the game; turning it into some railroadey BS quest game.

So if you're bored you should just consider the game completed (i.e you have finished the game) and move on.

Who said anything about being bored with the game? There's tons left to do in sandbox.

[vetrox]

It's an exercise in using different parts until you unlock the ones you want by collecting numbers, big deal.

Thats sort of what a challenge is. Dont forget it will also have a currency. Maybe when its introduced you will still feel its a case of "o collect this, and get paid for that, big deal" then career mode is not for you. Sandbox will be your thing. Squad will therefor have catered to 2 different groups of KSP players

Hopefully you're not looking for Squad to give you "missions" in Career mode, that would kill the entire feel of the game; turning it into some railroadey BS quest game.

Thats not what I was trying to say. But a little bit of direction in the first few tiers of career mode would be extremely helpfull to newer players. However yes I do think there should be missions in career mode. If you feel that ruins the feel of career mode (not the game) then thats what sandbox is for. To me, I invision career mode as some sort of campaign that you would see in a single player fps.

Who said anything about being bored with the game? There's tons left to do in sandbox.

I wasnt refering to you or anyone in this particular thread. Its just an observation. I have plenty left to do in sandbox (well, the end of my career mode) Its just I notice on occasion that people have done "everything" and dont know what to do. These people have completed the game and should move on orrrrrr if squad wanted to introduce achievements that would give them something else to do.

REGEX

What is your vision of career mode. How will it work in your dream KSP? (im genuinley curious I like discussions)

Mine is pretty much what we've said. The current career mode but with currency and missions. I understand your against that but Its what I invision it to be.

[Exposure]

Hopefully you're not looking for Squad to give you "missions" in Career mode, that would kill the entire feel of the game; turning it into some railroadey BS quest game.

And I have to disagree with your earlier comment that reducing the gains would just result in career mode being a grind as well. If you reduce it too much like, say, to a tenth of the original values, yes, it would become a major chore. But from my experience a reducing to around somewhere between 70% and 50% for select science items, along with some balance changes like implementing a limit on how much science one can get from transmissions resulted in a generally fair paced advancement, not too slow to the point it felt like I was going need to do hundreds and hundreds of launches to get where, but I actually had to go places if I wanted to keep unlocking the high tier stuff.

It's what motivated me to finally get around to planning, building, and actually doing a manned Duna landing and return and break my streak of staying within Kerbin's SoI for all manned missions each time I did a save, if only because I wanted some parts to improve my spaceplane. And it was fun having to deal with the constraints I had with designing the spacecrafts I would need.

I mean I think career mode could still use a lot of improvements, but I think you're being a bit too pessimistic about it.

[Guest]

What is your vision of career mode. How will it work in your dream KSP?

Well, I'm no game designer, but I hope that Squad avoids busy-work mechanics and instead focuses on providing compelling and interesting gameplay. I also hope to see a free-form career mode where you determine what you want to do and the game reacts to your exploration, rather than have some rando doling out "missions" that tell you where to go, when to go, and what to do. I'd like to see meaningful life support (none of this infinite recycler BS), craft failures, time lag, reasons for actually putting up a satellite, etc... I hope to see resources in the game at some point but I think the paradigm is pretty bad at the moment; scanning for resources shouldn't involve putting something in orbit, time-warping at 50X, and walking away to watch some TV while you wait four hours for Moho to make a complete "year" rotation, it should involve gameplay that gives you a reason to go places. Money and science have a place in all that as limiters so long as "grindy" elements are avoided, they should never be the reason someone does something, they should be activities that are done while doing something else you actually wanted to do.

Anyway, I'm quite happy that "This game is for *massive* nerds" and I hope Squad continues to cater to us instead of turning their game into some railroadey grind-fest of a quest game.

I mean I think career mode could still use a lot of improvements, but I think you're being a bit too pessimistic about it.

I'm not being pessimistic about it at all, I'm saying that career mode isn't compelling at the moment. What part of "at the moment" don't you get?

Edited November 1, 2013 by regex
how do I grammar

[vetrox]

I also hope to see a free-form career mode where you determine what you want to do and the game reacts to your exploration, rather than have some rando doling out "missions" that tell you where to go, when to go, and what to do.

So Can you explain in a little more depth that one. How would you have the game react to you say? landing on duna? At the moment you get science which unlocks more parts and in the future this will unlock some currency you can use to fund further missions to go further. What else would you want to see? Other than the "game reacts to your exploration" you have essentially described sandbox mode. What compelling and interesting gameplay would you have. Flying ships to outer space isnt fun and compelling? Yes you have already done it a bajillion times but i bet it was fun and compelling in the beginning. Video games dont keep us entertained indefinatley.

Maybe some form of randomly generated star system along with the mechanic of discovering outher planetary bodies?

You say you want resources? Maybe instead of these being used to power ships (like the kethane mod) they are transported back to kerbin in exchange for cash? or maybe the later techs should include parts that are made of specific materials. Maybe science should be earnt by discovering resources and taking them back to kerbin. The science from that resource is then directly used to unlock parts that require that resource? Who knows

Maybe probes (and indeed manned craft) Should have some sort of cost per game hour to reflect the money it costs to hire all the ground staff?

Instead of just happily badmouthing the current career mode you should make constructive suggestions. Ok you dont like it. What are some specific ways in which you would like to see it improved and how would they effect new and old players alike?

I dont agree with craft failures (craft randomly failing after 4hours of real time spent getting it somewhere? That doesnt sound like good gamplay to me)

Time lag: Please explain this is something new to me.

A reason for putting up a satellite? I couldnt agree more. I dont know what reason they could implement but i sure as hell want one.

Meaningfull life support: I've no opinion either way maybe this is something that can be added as part of a set of difficulty modes

EDIT: I'm trying to type in the most non aggressive way possible. I know it doesnt read that way but thats the downside of text only debate

[JRF2k]

I think a lot of people forget this was the first steps into Career Mode. It's not done. I am sure it'll be reworked and tweaked for months to come.

Posts like this seem valid only after version 1.0 is released not while it's in the alpha and beta stages.

[Superfluous J]

I'm hardly a pro at this game, but I have almost unlocked the entire tech tree without ever having to repeat a mission. Heck, I didn't even really do anything on Kerbin, just a crew report and straight up-and-down type job to get the first tier unlocked, then I did a suborbital hop, an orbit, a Mun flyby, a Minmus flyby, a Mun landing, a Minmus Landing then a Duna landing. I am planning a more substantial mission to the Jool system now. Never have I felt like I was grinding (apart from having to repeat transmissions multiple times).

I don't think I've ever seen you and me in the same place, so from now on I'm going to assume we're the same person. Seriously, I could have typed EXACTLY what you typed up to the Duna landing. I opted instead to start my Kethane scanning of Mun and Minmus while I wait for a transfer window to open up.

I too have not bothered to "spam" research, though my automated landers on Mun - I sent 5 in one ship - did intentionally land in different craters and I did about 10 science/transmit cycles each which I suppose counts as spamming. But it took all of 30 seconds to do with each ship and I crashed one of them so really I spent 2 minutes - maybe - on all that horrible busy work. But anyway, once I get even close to diminishing returns I stop and go do something else.

One other difference is that I'm also only unlocking 1 tech tree node at a time for extra fun, and I have somewhere around 1500 spare science I've not used. I'm going to use a little bit of it today to unlock fuel lines.

[Sapphire]

Posts like this seem valid only after version 1.0 is released not while it's in the alpha and beta stages.

In my opinion, constructed criticism is always needed, especially in alpha stages. If nothing's criticized, nothing gets improved.

[Caelib]

First off, let me say that (in my opinion) Career Mode isn't very "new player friendly" (YET). I would say Sandbox is more friendly unless you're overwhelmed by choice.

If you're looking for effortless gratitude, then this probably isn't the game for you. Anything challenging provides a great feeling of accomplishment when you finally achieve your goal. Make no mistake, this game is hard ... very hard. If you're willing to invest the time to truly learn all aspects of the game, then you will have a lot of fun. You will fail and fail hard. I've spent days working on missions only to completely scrap them after discovering fundamental flaws in my design -- this is how we learn. KSP is a game built on trial-and-error.

[Guest]

So Can you explain in a little more depth that one. How would you have the game react to you say? landing on duna? At the moment you get science which unlocks more parts and in the future this will unlock some currency you can use to fund further missions to go further. What else would you want to see? Other than the "game reacts to your exploration" you have essentially described sandbox mode. What compelling and interesting gameplay would you have. Flying ships to outer space isnt fun and compelling? Yes you have already done it a bajillion times but i bet it was fun and compelling in the beginning. Video games dont keep us entertained indefinatley.

Honestly, I don't know; I told you I'm no game designer. If you look in the persistence file for a given save you'll notice achievements are being recorded so the game can track what you do and, presumably, how often you've done it, and that means you can build mechanics off of that. Having an installation at a certain biome on the Mun, doing interesting science... anything but stale-ass "missions". Missions are the easy way out, anyone can do that; Squad should innovate and keep the spirit of free-form explorative gameplay we have now.