Objectives that would progress naturally for career mode - what are yours?

[allmhuran]

Note up front: I have no doubt that this is something Squad is already thinking about.

So, career mode. I'm against the idea of arbitrary restrictions, like only being allowed to launch specific missions, or choose from specific missions, in some specific order. That's an example of an arbitrary limitation. Giving the player the freedom to choose is better.

But right now that comes with a bit of a problem: The only real objective is to "go somewhere". There are lots of different somewheres to go, but that's really just the same objective with different delta-v requirements.

So I was thinking about the kinds of objectives that would progress naturally in career mode. The key questions are these:

• What is the new challenge?
  
• How does it fit naturally into career mode?
  
• What would need to be added to the game to make this a real objective?
  

So, here are few ideas I came up with. I'd like to see what kinds of things other people think would fit this model.

Just to be perfectly clear: I am *not* suggesting that players should be required to do this missions in the order I have described using some kind of arbitrary mission list. If a player wants their first mission to be an Eeloo landing and return, they should be free to do that. Rather, I'm suggesting that these kind of objectives progress naturally as a result of normal gameplay mechanics.

Set up communications satellites

What is the new challenge?

Communications satellites imply the need for line of sight for transmission, which I know is something Squad is already looking at. Setting up a good array of satellites means figuring out a good geometric arrangement to provide a line of sight from ships to satellites to KSC no matter where those ships might be. For example, three equatorial geostationary satellites around Kerbin is an excellent start. Three satellites in solar orbit at Kerbin's altitude is another good way to go after that. This represents a different kind of challenge, because you have to figure out a good geometric arrangement for multiple ships.

How does it fit naturally into career mode?

I think it's pretty obvious for this one. It would mean that before launching your interplanetary missions (which naturally come after simply getting into Kerbin orbit or a Mun landing) you would want to have your satellite network set up so you can transmit your science more effectively. Launching satellites is relatively easy... they're light, and the first few don't have to go very far, so this naturally sits fairly early in your career path.

What new gameplay mechanic would we need for this to be a real objective?

Tranmissions would have to require line of sight to KSC, either directly or by relaying through other satellites.

Mapping/scanning missions

What is the new challenge?

Mapping and scanning missions require you to think about your orbit around the target body. Unlike most other kinds of missions, you don't want to be equatorial, you want to be more polar. The new challenge is figuring out how to effectively (and efficiently!) put something into non-equatorial orbit.

How does it fit naturally into career mode?

It introduces some basic information about how plane changes work, and allows players to discover how they can more easily perform those changes by tweaking their encounter angles before getting into orbit around the target. And mapping satellites can serve several useful purposes, not least of which could be finding flat terrain to use when you send your landers. So mapping satellites, again, come naturally before sending out your manned landers or bases.

What new gameplay mechanic would we need for this to be a real objective?

The ability to scan for flat terrain (or anything else worth scanning for, like resources) and have the game be able to show you when it finds some and remember it through your persistence file.

Orbital space stations

What is the new challenge?

Space stations require either docking finesse, or the ability to launch large payloads, or both. So the challenge is to do with intermediate to advanced ship construction techniques and orbital rendezvous. If any kind of life support mechanic is ever added, it also introduces the challenge of maintenance and resupply.

How does it fit naturally into career mode?

When I think of the late stages of my career I imagine having space stations everywhere with big science labs, perhaps spare fuel for interplanetary travellers, and so on. The difficulty of this kind of objective means it sits naturally in a career that has progressed well into the interplanetary stages. Think of it as a late game objective.

What new gameplay mechanic would we need for this to be a real objective?

Nothing much, just some big heavy parts that would be useful, in any way, on an orbital space station. The new science lab coming in 0.23 is an example of such a part. Space stations would also become part of your communcations network. For the full experience we would need some kind of life support and resupply mechanic.

Permanent or Long Term Bases on Other Planets

This would be pretty much the same as the space station objective so I won't write all that out again. The difference is that it is harder, since you don't just have to get your big stuff there, you have to land it too! So the new challenge is a serious increase in difficulty, and the natural fit in career mode is very late in a career. The required gameplay mechanic is, again, largely the same: Some big heavy parts that make sense, and are useful, as part of a permanent outpost.

Edited November 19, 2013 by allmhuran

[Turvok]

I like that you're having this discussion. But I believe it's probably covered elsewhere. I'm on my phone atm and not quite as proficient at finding that stuff anyways. I'd like to add a few things though.

We know that there will be an Observatory coming at the ksc at some point. But I'd like to see some more science type parts to build something akin to the hubble in orbit. Not necessarily a requirement but some sort of encouragement to do so.

Also more encouragement to send probes to other celestial bodies before sending manned missions. This could be done with something as easily implemented as the financial system that we also know is coming in some form to career mode.

[jwenting]

Quite simple, find a natural progression of mission types and follow that.

So, initially you'd think of sounding rockets, rockets that examine the upper atmosphere.

As those get bigger and bigger you start getting sub-orbital hops. Then you discover staging and reach low orbit and eventually high orbits.

Flyby of the Mun and Minmus open up, and eventually landing there.

If you want to land a Kerbal on the Mun or Minmus, you need something powerful enough it can get back to Kerbin of course, no Kerbal left behind.

Dreams get bigger, you set your eyes on other planets. Duna looks enticing, and Eve. But you're not yet going to risk your people in interplanetary missions. No, you send unmanned missions on a one way trip.

There's that big green thing up in the sky, what's it made of? Looks almost like it's got violent storms running around it. Wish we could get close and take a look.

etc. etc. etc.

[regex]

Also more encouragement to send probes to other celestial bodies before sending manned missions. This could be done with something as easily implemented as the financial system that we also know is coming in some form to career mode.

I much prefer sending manned missions instead of probes; probes are boring and not at all "Kerbal". I'd hate to be "encouraged" to send probes first, screw that.

One of my objectives would be planetary exploitation, more than simple in situ resource generation. I'd love to see a system of schedules and trade, returning resources for cash, using resources on the spot, active-gameplay surveying (ground-based seismic and geological surveys rather than the current "wait for a satellite to finish scanning" paradigm) giving reasons to rove and explore, life support management (could be used with resources, ice in polar craters, greenhouses...), etc... I want a reason to make some other planet my own rather than simply visiting it once in order to gather science and then maybe "do some missions" there before moving on to the next "do some missions here" series.

[Algiark]

Progressive objective kind of limits the gameplay, in my opinion. I prefer if there's no real objective per se, but there are rewards for doing certain things which contribute to the gameplay as a whole. Of course, naturally some things should be done prior to other things, such as setting communication network, but let the players decide how they should progress. To encourage sending probes *first* to celestial bodies, simply have a penalty for losing kerbals, or make sending probes a much cheaper alternative than sending kerbals (actually that's the reason real world space agencies send a lot of probes to everywhere - because they're cheap).

Let the technological and financial limitations be the boundary of your progress, I say.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Algiark

[Queeg]

For me, something that seems natural and familiar (i.e. a mirror of earth progression):

• Unmanned rockets.
  
• Launch of scanning device/satellite to analyse lower and upper atmosphere.
  
• Satellite discovers new compounds that allow for more complex capsules to be built.
  
• Simple capsules, allowing suborbital travel to "discovered" points of interest on Kerbin. Making it necessary to travel to specific continents/places.
  
• Surface analysis to allow more complex capsules/rockets/scanning equipment.
  

• Launch of orbital manned missions.
  
• Launch of more complex scanning satellites.
  
• Mun orbit.
  
• Mun landing.
  
• Maybe some more surface analysis and discovery.
  
• Minmus orbit
  
• Minmus landing.
  
• Maybe some more surface analysis and discovery.
  
• Establish long range communication network.
  
• Establish orbit space station.
  
• Establish orbital micro-g manufacturing.
  

• Set off further into the solar system.
  

Rinse and repeat.

(I've only left Kerbin sphere of interest once so far and I crashed into Duna - so my imagination is limited to other possibilities so far.)

Maybe throw in some "black monolith" type discoveries to direct players to specific (and more challenging) goals.

[Algiark]

Maybe throw in some "black monolith" type discoveries to direct players to specific (and more challenging) goals.

The monoliths could be some kind of rare collectibles. When you discover every one of them on every celestial body, it would trigger a super-secret ending, unlock advanced technology, or give another huge reward to be used for your future missions.

[Neshma]

I was actually surprised to note that my very first docking in space ala- Gemini 6/7 did not get me any science points. It was a fun mission though.

I really like the idea of space telescopes, communication satellites as well as exploration missions being part of the scientific advance of your KSP program.

Also I think EVAs could really use more punch, id love to see repair/extra parts being stowed and Kerbals to be able to attach them on orbit. Allow struts to be added to space stations to make them stronger (and hence bigger), add solar arrays etc ala the ISS construction!!

[allmhuran]

Progressive objective kind of limits the gameplay, in my opinion. I prefer if there's no real objective per se, but there are rewards for doing certain things which contribute to the gameplay as a whole. Of course, naturally some things should be done prior to other things, such as setting communication network, but let the players decide how they should progress.

Yep, that's exactly the idea.

Rather than force the player to launch a communications satellite prior to going to Duna let them decide for themselves, but require line of sight for transmission. This would mean that if you choose to go to Duna first and don't have communications satellites in place, you'll need to figure out some other way of getting the data back to Kerbin. You can still choose to do that if you like, but there's a natural advantage to having the satellite in place first.

I used a starcraft analogy in another post on this subject. At the start of the game you can do whatever you like. If you want to start building 10 gateways as soon as possible and pump out only zealots you can. Then you deal with the consequences of that choice. You might find that this is not a very good strategy. Perhaps you should have done something else first, like build workers for a while. There's many ways to go, but some options are more advantageous than others because of how the game mechanics work and not because of any arbitrary restriction like, say, the game only allowing you to build workers for the first 3 minutes, then forcing you to build a zealot, then forcing you to build a nexus, etc.

The point, though, is that for this kind of thing to be possible there have to be different kinds of things to do in the first place. If there is only one thing to do (send Kerbal or probe to destination x, do science) then there mechanics are too shallow to provide this kind of natural, progressive gameplay.

Edited November 20, 2013 by allmhuran

[Kegereneku]

Two persons here will see me coming.

Career mode IMHO can only progress "naturally" if the entire gameplay oblige the player to follow a coherent technological progression. Because given the possibility player will "cheat" and we all agree that it would be disappointing to allow the player to land a manned-mission on Duna and return after only a dozen of flight, or let Scott Manley create a video-tutorial called "Finish Career mode in 3 hours".

I don't believe "roughly total freedom" make a gameplay interesting.

KSP may be about emulating the fun part of real rocket-science : the experimental rocket, the race to the Moon, launching probes and satellite, assembling space station. But it's only fulfilling if it was truly challenging to do, and no, I don't mean "challenging" as in "force the hard-core player to accomplish 100 objectives first", I mean challenging as in "you proved yourself, you sent probes/return vehicle to ease the work, and today you'll rewrite history" at the opposite of "cobbled together an inefficient and expensive rocket that couldn't fail and got bored because it was easy".

The objective of Career mode should be to abandon sandbox mentality and make your career something unique, that can't be cleaned up and replaced entirely.

So... to answer the Question : Here's what IMO I would consider a natural progress.

(consider that phase change when you reach some key technologies)

**EDIT : Consider that any "phase" progression is based on the Tech-tree and that all missions are optional, even if normal players wouldn't be too cocky to deign doing those "missions unworthy of their skill" since they propose a gain for something they would do anyway.**

Phase 1 : [Very Low budget] [no energy source] [weak science]

- suborbital probe rocket **EDIT : Lines likes this one, are NOT mission, just a description of what a "new player" would be doing.**

[mission] - test various rocket engine (tutorial if you want to learn which engine to use and when)

- suborbital manned rocket

[mission] - achieve orbit with a probe (tutorial if you want)

- achieve orbit = budget increase

Phase 2 : [Low budget] [low energy source] [weak science] (every death is taken on the "reserve money" not the "budget money")

[mission] - Do stuff to increase your budget and test technology = reserve money for any project

- first EVA (which could even be locked before)

[missions] Put various satellites in various orbit (occasion to learn what mean orbital mechanic) = reserve money for any project

[mission] Land back at KSC = budget increase or reserve money for any project

- first orbital rendezvous (NO RCS no docking port !)

- first orbital rendezvous (with RCS and docking port)

Phase 3 : [medium budget] [low energy source] [medium science] (the gameplay still don't allow you Duna with the parts you have)

[mission] THE MOON IS THERE ! AND WE ARE GOING TO FALL ON IT ! = LARGE BUDGET BOOST (But you have to land on the moon on a time-frame or the mission restart)

- Alternative : Several missions offer you enough freedom and budget to do whatever you want on the Mun or Minmus.

EDIT : Alternative 2 : The budget boost (unlocked along the tech tree) is definitive, but you have to go on the moon to have enough science to go further away later.

Phase 4 : [medium budget] [medium energy source] [medium science] (the gameplay still don't allow you Duna with the part you have)

- You prepare whatever you want for later using the budget you have

- You start building space station for whatever reason you have

[Mission] Coincidently a mission ask you to put [whatever count as a space station] in orbit = reserve money for any project

[Mission] Create better re-serviceable satellites, with more precise orbit, fuel-station, a shuttle able to send a crew of 8 to the Moon

Phase 5 : [medium budget] [medium energy source] [strong science] (death penalty get higher, public relation)

- You have the technology to go anywhere, but the price of those technology make a manned-mission costly as hell

- Coincidently you can reach interesting technology if you do unmanned science first.

[Missions] Suggest you where you can do science, you are free as to how to overengineer it.

- The game incite you to send "BIG science module" to any planet of the solar system.

[mission] Suggest you to redo more science by going back where you went with better sensor.

[mission] Do a manned mission on the surface of any other planet, massive budget increase.

Phase 6 : [high budget] [strong energy source] [strong science]

Golden Age begin. Things start to get very challenging.

The game "End" when you gained enough science for all technology ever.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Kegereneku

[allmhuran]

Yes, you've said before that you think we have to follow arbitrary restrictions for the game to work, but you're yet to provide an argument as to why my proposed mechanics don't work. You say: " it would be disappointing to allow the player to land a manned-mission on Duna and return after only a dozen of flight", but you don't say why, nor why we can't just let the game mechanics provide natural restrictions instead of imposing completely arbitrary ones.

PS: At 5528 science for my first career launch, I'm pretty far ahead of Scott Manley.

[regex]

Career mode IMHO can only progress "naturally" if the entire gameplay oblige the player to follow a coherent technological progression. Because given the possibility player will "cheat" and we all agree that it would be disappointing to allow the player to land a manned-mission on Duna and return after only a dozen of flight, or let Scott Manley create a video-tutorial called "Finish Career mode in 3 hours".

Skilled players (I'm not exactly claiming to be one, I'm talking about the Manleys and almhurans out there) are not a "problem" to be solved for this game, they are an inspiration showing us what can be done. Furthermore, we don't all agree on your point. If a new player came into the game and could do a manned Duna flight and return the Kerbals after only doing a few preflights around Kerbin, good for them! That means they grasp the core gameplay concepts and should be rewarded for using that skill, not summarily hog-tied and told that they're bad for the game.

I don't believe "roughly total freedom" make a gameplay interesting.

KSP may be about emulating the fun part of real rocket-science : the experimental rocket, the race to the Moon, launching probes and satellite, assembling space station. But it's only fulfilling if it was truly challenging to do, and no, I don't mean "challenging" as in "force the hard-core player to accomplish 100 objectives first", I mean challenging as in "you proved yourself, you sent probes/return vehicle to ease the work, and today you'll rewrite history" at the opposite of "cobbled together an inefficient and expensive rocket that couldn't fail and got bored because it was easy".

Look, I've already "proved myself" several times in sandbox mode doing all those things you say I should have, why should I have to go through all that crap again in career mode? That's hardly challenging, even on a budget. Following the entire Apollo series is a great idea in real life because we have equipment failures and design flaws to figure out, not so much in KSP. In KSP doing the entire Apollo series over and over again just to prove a lander works is downright boring and terrible gameplay. It's not challenging in the slightest, nor is it in the spirit of KSP's gameplay.

The objective of Career mode should be to abandon sandbox mentality and make your career something unique, that can't be cleaned up and replaced entirely.

How can a career be unique if you abandon the one thing that makes it unique? Your entire bucket list of objectives amounts to the history of Mankind's entry into space. I don't want to play that over and over, I want to explore the history of Kerbalkind's entry into space and how they might go about it using different approaches. On one career save I might want to exploit Moho. On another I could have a Grand Tour going. On a third I might set up a trade route between Duna and Dres moving oxygen and heavy metals to the bases that need them. But if all my career saves follow the same old cookie-cutter BS, there's no reason whatsoever to even play career mode, and that's a tragedy.

Since the dawn of video games writers have been attempting to give the player more freedom, choice, and outcome, and now that we have a solid sandbox game you want to take that all away? Shame on you.

[Tw1]

I like the OP's ideas, though I'll toss in an idea I raised previously- stations and bases, if they contain enough kerbals, the right parts, are there for long enough, etc, should add to your reputation level. They should also be possible destinations for space tourists.

I'm hoping for another level of science, which lets us collect actual data, so doing tests on the ground, and expanding the knowledge of kerbalkind would be another.

I'd like to point out that all these ideas, can simply be added as a gameplay mechanic. There is no need for you to "accept a mission" to map a planet, but having the maps is useful, not to mention damn cool, and if you go about it the wrong way, it simply won't work. This is a good thing.

Many games are story driven. The story shapes the experience, makes sure you won't get stuck in an impossible situation etc. It's perfectly valid, and I've enjoyed many games that work this way. But Kerbal doesn't need this.

There's enough in this game to inspire you to do your own things. Just look at the fanworks, and mission reports sections.

I made a base on Minmus because there was a nice spot, I'm going to Eve because I want to sail the boiling seas and see what there is to see. And if you end up in an impossible situation, well, you should've tested your stuff better.

Career mode should challenge us with the need to manage the home front of our space programs, and give as things to do as we fly about the solar system. Not lock us into a certain story, when most players seem to find there own.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Tw1

[Idobox]

A simple mechanic would be a to have a per mission budget, that starts pretty low, and accomplishing a certain number of missions or goals increases it.

For example, you could start with just enough cash to put a parachute and capsule on top of a SRB, but once you reach altitude X, you get more money and can start to make a decent suborbital rocket, which gives you enough money to build a rocket able to achieve orbit, etc... if you just want to build a gigantic pile of boosters to send a 200 tons rover on Eeloo, there's always sandbox mode, but you will have the freedom to either send kerbals on the Mun or a probe around Eve for similar budgets.

You could also have a dual mechanism, with missions giving you budget but no science, and free-flight with no clear objective, but that would give you science, or just be fun.

Life support will be a very good reason to send probes. Right now, probes are sometimes more difficult than capsules because of the power drain. It would also encourage you to have supply caches prepared before your great Laythe trip.

For mapping missions, I think we should also have seismic mapping. IE, land sensors on several points to get info on the internal geology (Kethane, I'm looking at you), the more you have (in sensible positions), the more accurate the info.

In situ resources exploitation is also a great mechanic that would motivate players to go step by step, especially if the hardware is super difficult to get there in the first place (putting a fuel station on the Mun should be very difficult, at least more difficult than sending robot probes on Duna).

Using the science would also be a great mechanic. I imagine something like Kerbal engineer giving you the TWR and drag coefficient vs altitude for any body you have sent the relevant probes to. It's obviously more complex, but having the map view able to calculate the aerobraking effects once you've dropped one probe with a barometer on it would be a very good incentive for me to send such a probe before a manned mission.

[Queeg]

[...] I want to explore the history of Kerbalkind's entry into space and how they might go about it using different approaches. On one career save I might want to exploit Moho. On another I could have a Grand Tour going. On a third I might set up a trade route between Duna and Dres moving oxygen and heavy metals to the bases that need them.

[...]Since the dawn of video games writers have been attempting to give the player more freedom, choice, and outcome, and now that we have a solid sandbox game you want to take that all away?

As a brand new player, I can tell you that I personally am looking to career mode to give structure to the overwhelming sense of too much too soon that I feel with the Sandbox.

In my opinion, a single game has to be self contained. It can't rely on new players watching hours upon hours of videos on youtube or twitch.tv. It has to introduce new stuff and do it's best to teach a new player how to use it, but also give a clear goal that requires that new stuff too.

You are absolutely right that the game right now has a solid sandbox, at least as far as I understand the term. A lot of early adopters and clearly some very talented people have created many rewarding challenges amongst the community and steered the game's direction well, helping shape the game's mechanics and toolset to be both unique and excellent.

For me, the forums are a challenge. Because the forums are full of people who love the sandbox mode and have made the best of it. People who've played for a very long time. Who've forgotten they never knew what a descending node was and how to dock two spacecraft in orbit. Who see the strengths of the sandbox and want those same elements to be in the career mode...

...Except career mode and sandbox modes aren't the same. It doesn't surprise me that people here on the forums want a sandbox-like career mode, but those same people already have that... it's called sandbox mode. A career mode needs a different basis, a different ruleset. It can't just be the sandbox with a tutorial. For me personally, that means structure and limits and a path to follow, a career to build and a progression curve. I'd like to think I'm going to be fairly typical of new players, but obviously I can't know that. Likewise, I can't see the whole picture either - all I can do is hope the Squad team have a clear view of the direction they want to take career mode and the follow that up by hoping it matches my own aspirations.

I can see people don't want to give up what they love about the sandbox. But keep too much of the sandbox and all you get is sandbox-lite which won't please anyone.

Career mode should challenge us with the need to manage the home front of our space programs, and give as things to do as we fly about the solar system. Not lock us into a certain story, when most players seem to find there own.

Except, you're talking about existing players. The sort of people who would play an early access game without career mode and limited (but ever growing) mechanics. The sort of players who, as you rightly point out, don't need a story and are happy to create their own narrative.

But will new players want the same thing? That structure I personally want from career mode might easily be achieved by locking me into a certain story.

I have no doubt that my opinion right now is in a minority. But would that still be true around the time 1.0 is eventually launched? I don't know.

I'm not suggesting trying to make the game all things to all people. But the existing playerbase is a niche and getting beyond that niche will mean a lot more hand holding than I suspect most of you ever needed.

Only time (and Squad) will time.

[regex]

...Except career mode and sandbox modes aren't the same. It doesn't surprise me that people here on the forums want a sandbox-like career mode, but those same people already have that... it's called sandbox mode. A career mode needs a different basis, a different ruleset. It can't just be the sandbox with a tutorial. For me personally, that means structure and limits and a path to follow, a career to build and a progression curve. I'd like to think I'm going to be fairly typical of new players, but obviously I can't know that. Likewise, I can't see the whole picture either - all I can do is hope the Squad team have a clear view of the direction they want to take career mode and the follow that up by hoping it matches my own aspirations.

You completely misunderstand my misgivings about Kegereneku's posts. There is nothing wrong with having missions and structure within career mode, but you can't abandon the sandbox at the same time. I prefer to see "organic" objectives alongside missions so that those of us who have a clear idea of what we want to do within the game have the freedom do do so and also will get rewarded (and advance) within the career. The science system, with a few minor tweaks that SQUAD is already writing, does this; it provides a limitation and challenge but it doesn't prevent you from doing anything specifically. I hope to see the same thing come out of monetary and mission systems, limitation and challenge without arbitrary restrictions.

There is no reason a mission system cannot coexist aside a system of nebulous objectives, where a player can pick and choose how they want to go about approaching their career, where the experience can be as structured (specific guiding missions) or as adaptive (providing opportunities based on player actions) as needed for the player. In fact, a player who is setting their own goals and objectives could want to "do a mission" every so often to find new direction, and a player who is strictly "doing missions" might want to just land on the Mun one night for fun. Sandbox gameplay does not exclude structure, limitations, and challenge, sandbox gameplay implies choice and freedom to explore and go about things in a personalized way.

My problem is that we have this wonderful sandbox experience and now we see people arguing that career mode should follow Human history to a "T" and you should only launch suborbital flights X times until you "prove" you can do it right. Screw that! I can fly a damn rocket, I've done so in sandbox mode many times, why should I suddenly have arbitrary "goals" thrown at me in career mode where I'm forced to do some repetitive "testing" of craft that I know will fly? If you want that, fine, but I've got bigger fish to fry. If I have to do so within a budget then that's awesome, there's a challenge I can face while completing my objectives, but don't tell me I have to recreate the entire Apollo series every time I start a new career save.

E: On a positive note, I think SQUAD might have a good thing coming with their "contracts". I think they'll be vague enough for the sandbox crowd and specific enough for the structured crowd. But like you said, only time and SQUAD will tell.

Edited November 20, 2013 by regex

[Queeg]

You completely misunderstand my misgivings about Kegereneku's posts.

Aye, perhaps. In which case, my apologies.

And yes, I too wouldn't want a linear A -> B -> C -> D. But equally I wouldn't want "nebulous objectives" either.

I've made the case for early unmanned flights in another thread, without repetition. Honestly, I don't know if that would be good or bad in gameplay terms - but for me, it would "feel" natural. Again, I don't know if Apollo is the right Earth progression to mirror - but it would be something familiar, even friendly. I doubt it's possible to mirror Earth tech anyway, not least because jet aircraft are harder to build and fly than rockets within the Kerbal universe.

As you say, you *KNOW* you can can fly a rocket. You *KNOW* rocket designs that will and won't work in specific circumstances. So far, I don't. And my assumption is that future new players won't either. I'm not trying to hold you back, I'm just trying to think of ways to ease the next poor sucker like me into the game at a time when the game itself is how players will learn to play (rather than forums and youtube).

[regex]

As you say, you *KNOW* you can can fly a rocket. You *KNOW* rocket designs that will and won't work in specific circumstances. So far, I don't. And my assumption is that future new players won't either. I'm not trying to hold you back, I'm just trying to think of ways to ease the next poor sucker like me into the game at a time when the game itself is how players will learn to play (rather than forums and youtube).

Career mode should account for all levels and styles of play; this is why I (and others, obviously) am a proponent of a sandboxey sort of approach; it greatly facilitates everyone playing at their own level. This does not preclude missions, resources, budgets, or whatever other control structures SQUAD wants to introduce to give people limitations and challenges, but it also demands that the player be allowed to approach these structures in their own way and use them as they see fit, and not be tied down to a single way of doing things or having artificial and arbitrary limitations imposed upon them (you MUST do five suborbital flights before you can even plot a maneuver node to orbit, you MUST land on the Mun and Minmus before you choose Duna or Eve, you MUST test every craft in a flyby before you are allowed to land, you MUST send a probe before a lander is allowed, etc...).

E: Watch almhuran's "Tier 0 interplanetary, 3676 science" video (in his sig) to see what I mean. There's a case where an advanced player and their knowledge took an innovative approach to the current science system. They were allowed to approach it in their own way, using the tools given them, to produce spectacular results.

Edited November 20, 2013 by regex

[allmhuran]

But will new players want the same thing? That structure I personally want from career mode might easily be achieved by locking me into a certain story.

I don't think these are necessarily at loggerheads. What you seem to be talking about here is a few structured, guided objectives up front for newer players. I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, in fact I think this kind of thing is needed in order to add some tutorial elements to the game. But I would strongly recommend making it optional, since experienced players might not want to replay the tutorial over and over.

[Tw1]

As a brand new player, I can tell you that I personally am looking to career mode to give structure to the overwhelming sense of too much too soon that I feel with the Sandbox.

In my opinion, a single game has to be self contained. It can't rely on new players watching hours upon hours of videos on youtube or twitch.tv. It has to introduce new stuff and do it's best to teach a new player how to use it, but also give a clear goal that requires that new stuff too.

It's true, however, I still don't feel that locking in a certain story is necessary. Just make the next logical step.

You've made orbit. Now isn't that big grey circle in the sky look tempting? Landed on both moons a few times, which planets are closest? How are you going to check them out- probes, or send a kerbaled ship and hope?

Making your own decisions, and succeeding or failing is one of the good things about kerbal space program- it gets you to think, and experiment, rather than follow some elses orders.

There is a tutorial mode already, no doubt that will be somewhat more extensive in the final game, so you get a better handle on the basic skills.

I'm hoping for a more request style thing with contracts, rather than "Now, go to the Mun!".

For example, Dr. Fred Kerman might request certain data from the Mun. This could prompt a new player to go to the Mun for the first time, while someone whose space program is more advanced could send out someone in a lander stationed at their mun base, etc.

Or, you could completely ignore that request.

The thing is, somewhere along the line, they decided not to include science in the sandbox mode. I want to take the kerbals out to discover things, now, sandbox now seems like it's just meant for mucking around with the parts, building crazy things, etc.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Tw1

[Kegereneku]

To allmhuran :

My original point back then was that it's absurd to believe there can be "no restriction" since game-logic is based around many set of rules that are -in effect- arbitrary as you may not agree with the way the developers did the game. Those feel "natural" if the Devs did a good job and if we DO try to follow a "natural" progression...going to Duna a la "Rocket-punk" isn't natural, it would feel cheap knowing how hard it is real-life.

Now your Starcraft analogy don't sound right to me because it's a strategy game and, unlike what some can hope, KSP is NOT going to be about exploiting rare resources or managing a space empire.

Also, I gave example you could agree or relate with to keep players from going to Duna in a "natural" way. One is improbable (Life-support being implemented), the others were implied (new one : Inability to warp over "whatever" without a "habitat-capsule" (not perfect I know)), All example were still based on an open-world with freedom of execution.

I'll continue with Regex...

Regex :

Skilled players (I'm not exactly claiming to be one, I'm talking about the Manleys and almhurans out there) are not a "problem" to be solved for this game, they are an inspiration showing us what can be done

What can be done is strictly defined by the gameplay/progression-logic as it is at a given time. If there was a way to "Win Career" mode without leaving the launch pad, Your argument would still be valid and the game would still be broken.

I can already hear you say "Going to Duna in 10 flight isn't a glitch it's talent !". In Sandbox maybe. In Career mode it shouldn't. Why ? Because it would be a sign that the developers slacked off and just slapped a score-system to sandbox with a nonsensical tech-tree.

I never advocated that you should redo "exactly" Apollo, but it's stupid to think a space program is going to ignore the Mun and skip to Duna. You still need a transition that is both equivalent to Apollo (in therm of skill), that can be rightly rewarded by the progression-logic and lastly : that make sense.

Look, I've already "proved myself" several times in sandbox mode doing all those things you say I should have, why should I have to go through all that crap again in career mode?

You act as if the point of Career mode is to congratulate you when you want. It's sandbox mentality at its worst, and you are still forgetting what "new players" imply.

More surprising is how you seem to have dismissed my suggestion here as a stupid linear mission-per-mission campaign retracing Apollo. It isn't.

I invite you to reread it, I hope that my **EDIT** are enough because I'm tired of discussing with somebody who say the following :

"My problem is that we have this wonderful sandbox experience and now we see people arguing that career mode should follow Human history to a "T""

"you MUST do five suborbital flights before you can even plot a maneuver node to orbit"

"I'm forced to do some repetitive "testing" of craft that I know will fly?"

It's above gross exaggeration of what I said, it's more than taking the worst interpretation, it's just made-up sh*t to support your point ! Text-book example of Logical Fallacies. Everything I said until now should have at least gave you a nuanced vision. Even if my English is far from perfect.

You are like a child living under the assumption that it's possible to create a self-generating world of opportunity that allow contradictory speed of technological progression, this, because it worked when you played pretend in the sandbox. It would really explain why you rejected anything I said.

YET, I feel like ALL OF THIS is all but a big misunderstanding between us.

The whole "testing engine" things for example, imagine your dreamy Open-world Career, now imagine a totally optional mission, where you can get paid for strapping Jebediah to a Solid-booster and bringing him back alive. YOU have fun, New players learned that Solid-Booster can't be shutdown.

ps: This post was a pain to write because my PC crashed. x2

[Algiark]

Don't forget about technological and financial limitations, especially if deadly re-entry, life support, and other realism add-ons is implemented in the final game. It means that at first, you can't just send your kerbal on a decade long journey around the sun, and you have to settle for a few hours of orbit around Kerbin (or if you have the balls, around Mun). From there, you will slowly and naturally progress within the restrictions provided by the technology and budget available to you. No need for story missions or restrictive objectives, just that if you want to send kerbals to Duna, you might want to spend some time around Kerbin doing things to increase your tech and/or available budget.

[Queeg]

What you seem to be talking about here is a few structured, guided objectives up front for newer players.

Honestly, I'm thinking about a lot more than a few and not just front loaded.

The more I think of it, the more I think Theme Hospital would make a good game to compare what I hope career mode might be. It had structure, goals, but how you achieved those goals gave the appearance of choice to the player, whilst realistically were a relatively narrow combination of solutions.

Yes, they could have written it so I could start with a huge plot of land and build the best/worst/most efficient hospital I could imagine.

But I didn't have that sort of imagination, so instead the game started me small, introduced new equipment, gave me a reason to use that new equipment and then kept giving me more and more complex goals to achieve.

The reason I'm thinking "more than a few" is that Theme Hospital didn't just have a few training hospitals at the beginning of the game. The scenarios never ended, they just got harder than my ability to complete them. I'm don't know if Theme Hospital had an end, but if it did... it probably wasn't "and here's a huge area of land... do whatever you feel like".

Which is kind of a hard sell to an existing community who already like their huge plot of land and have the imagination to make excellent use of it. Especially when my example screams "theme park". Maybe I should have chosen another game as an example.

Squad are going to create the game they want to create. In the meanwhile, I'll try to offer feedback from the newbie perspective.

[regex]

I can already hear you say "Going to Duna in 10 flight isn't a glitch it's talent !". In Sandbox maybe. In Career mode it shouldn't. Why ? Because it would be a sign that the developers slacked off and just slapped a score-system to sandbox with a nonsensical tech-tree.

You still need a transition that is both equivalent to Apollo (in therm of skill), that can be rightly rewarded by the progression-logic and lastly : that make sense.

You are like a child living under the assumption that it's possible to create a self-generating world of opportunity that allow contradictory speed of technological progression, this, because it worked when you played pretend in the sandbox. It would really explain why you rejected anything I said.

Ah, here is the disconnect between us. You believe that Kerbal technological and space development should follow Human technological and space development. I don't. I believe Kerbal technological and space development should be defined by the player within the confines of a well-defined tech tree and monetary system. We've already got one (although it needs a bit of tweaking) and I'm hoping to see the beginnings of the second in 0.23.

It doesn't matter to me whether it makes sense under Human rules because we're not playing by Human rules, we're playing by Kerbal rules. If Kerbals are ruled by a god-king who says "Build a ship and take it to Duna" way before they go to the Mun, who am I to say that doesn't make sense? Kerbals seem crazy enough to think like that sometimes, why try to make them fit strictly into the 1960's Human ideal of the space race? This is the Kerbal Space Program and so far I've been in charge of it, not Human history, thank you very much.

Case in point: Any sounding rocket built by the player at the beginning of career mode is manned. That's the Kerbal way (It's my way too. I rarely use probes, because I think they're "cheaty").

You act as if the point of Career mode is to congratulate you when you want. It's sandbox mentality at its worst, and you are still forgetting what "new players" imply.

More surprising is how you seem to have dismissed my suggestion here as a stupid linear mission-per-mission campaign retracing Apollo. It isn't.

Yes, I knee-jerked that following our previous conversation, my apologies. Your edits certainly helped (and your English isn't nearly as bad as some Americans I know). It's not about career mode "congratulating me", it's about career mode adapting to my playstyle and allowing me to progress at my pace with my goals. Organic game mechanics like science, money, and life support are great, non-arbitrary ways to steer the player and limit them, but I object to a historically sandbox game "telling me what to do". That's probably why I see all these linear boogeymen in "missions". Believe it or not, I actually trust SQUAD to do something right with their "Contracts", and I hope we see a system that allows the player maximum creativity to pursue their goals while also providing direction to those who want it.

In regards to the OP topic, I think a lot of new objectives besides those we've seen will be natural outgrowths of any new gameplay systems put into play in career mode, like resources, additional science, additional planets and systems, additional things to do on EVA, etc... Right now I can't think of anything else.

[Specialist290]

I'm personally partial to the idea of having optional, entirely voluntary, and context-based contracts that provide some form of extra incentive and direction to players who choose to accept them and that also nudge players towards achievements they haven't yet accomplished. If balanced correctly, players who are skilled enough could play the entire game without needing to take them, while those who want the extra direction could use them to guide their own choices, and new players who don't know what to do right off the bat have tangible goals they can aim to accomplish within the game's confines.