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

[allmhuran]

Yeah, I'm sure all of us would play a few of those contracts, even those of us that advocate "player freedom"... because if they're voluntary then they're not in contradiction with the idea of player freedom!

[Tw1]

Yeah, I'm sure all of us would play a few of those contracts, even those of us that advocate "player freedom"... because if they're voluntary then they're not in contradiction with the idea of player freedom!

Very true, it's be like challenges. I set aside separate saves to do challenges, if missions were like challenges, I'd do them like that.

Though I'd still prefer them to be more of the kind of thing you can do as part of missions you plan on your own.

(Like taking a special, paying tourist kerbal with you.)

Though, if the devs want to, they could include both types of things somehow, though I'm not entirely convinced set missions will even work. If you're up to the part where you're meant to go to the Mun, and somehow send something to Eve instead, are you penalised for that achievement? Or does the rest of the solar system simply not exist until you unlock it?

[regex]

Though, if the devs want to, they could include both types of things somehow, though I'm not entirely convinced set missions will even work. If you're up to the part where you're meant to go to the Mun, and somehow send something to Eve instead, are you penalised for that achievement? Or does the rest of the solar system simply not exist until you unlock it?

It's literally like 300m/s more delta-V to turn a Mun landing mission into an Eve orbit mission since your normal Mun braking delta-V can be supplemented by aerobraking/capture and your landing and return delta-V should be sufficient to return to Kerbin. The same is almost true for Duna, IIRC. It would be silly to penalize the player for doing that instead of going to the Mun unless that was part of the mission structure (and in that case, why am I not allowed to accept the Eve mission?) and "unlocking" the solar system is kind of dumb IMO.

I think contracts will be something like "Land on the Mun", and then once you've done that you get the reward and you get offered more Mun missions. I also think you'll have all sorts of basic contracts available from the start pertaining to all the bodies in the solar system. So if you're feeling up to the challenge and think you can work within the starting budget and tech you can tackle the Eeloo contract right away. I also think this could tie in with a system of budget rewards where you get a contract's reward even if you didn't accept the contract, so if I just up and land on Minmus, do some pertinent science, and set up a base, I would get the appropriate contract awards and "unlock" other Minmus contracts. In that way you reward people for doing things that they want to do without requiring them to get all formal about the process by clicking important buttons. vOv

[Tw1]

I think contracts will be something like "Land on the Mun", and then once you've done that you get the reward and you get offered more Mun missions. I also think you'll have all sorts of basic contracts available from the start pertaining to all the bodies in the solar system.

I think contracts for actual landings is not the best idea. Who will realistically pay you just to land? And isn't landing on each body an obvious goal anyway?

I'd prefer them to be more like "We'd like some ____ data from here, please." They'd pay for that, and it would add to your reputation.

Simpler things, like landings, could be better handled by a reputation type system, than contracts.

It'd feel more realistic, and immersive.

[regex]

I think contracts for actual landings is not the best idea.

Sure, that was just my example. I'm also trying to think of how SQUAD will actually implement contracts.

In my ideal world you'd get rewarded for whatever you were doing in much the same way you get science for returning a vessel, and we know SQUAD is tracking achievements so there really isn't any need for contracts or missions to make a monetary system work IMO. Another way of doing it that I would like to see is a "proposal" system where the player defines the objectives of a mission (through an interface) and then attempts to do the mission within a budget set by the system. Any over or under would be applied to the player's "generic" budget. You could also just do things with your generic budget if you wanted; non-mission launches would be paid from that budget.

[Kegereneku]

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.

I think there's more than that. but in any case you are facing with a contradiction : some technology DO have to come before others. Then while I do love the idea of playing "rocket punk" and somehow skipping Probes/SAS development to finance ISRU and play a la Heinlein/C Clarke/Space Cadet, the very concept DO require a minimal amount of rules you don't seem to realize.

For example : if Kerbal Science don't have to make a minimum of sense, then why not have NO rocket engine in the tech-tree until the last level ? Oh that's right ! The Devs arbitrarily decided of the order.

By the way, I hope you realize the tech-tree as it is now is just a placeholder. As we approach final I expect a LOOOOT of suggestion thread about "remaking the tech tree right !", "need small engine for Mercury like historical flight".

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.

Well, as long as it's cleared out. This is what I mean by "big misunderstanding", I know you'll naturally accept what SQUAD do, because they obviously know more than you and me. You are just overreacting at the fear of a linear campaign and rejecting things that are the building-bloc of good video game. It's like asking for a strategy game but not wanting to be restrained by things like "balanced unit".

Tips : You are rarely the creative one in a game, the devs usually planned most of what you'll do, and "emergent gameplay" is very very very rare. Usually born from "cheating".

I can assure you, you would feel disappointed by a Career-mode made on your criteria : A sandbox score-system where budget, science, Kerbal-training, observatory, and tech-tree is meaningless because to not restrain anybody.... there's no actual restriction. Yep, one clic and you see all planet, one clic and you skip automatically to rocket orbit-capable, another to Duna-capable rocket (because you couldn't be bothered with noobish orbital-work, you are too great for that).

ps : I had forgot about that one, "can't get to Duna because the observatory couldn't see it". Not the best excuse but better than letting Apollo land there around 1980.

ps2 : Firefox crashed again and lost my session.

[regex]

Then while I do love the idea of playing "rocket punk" and somehow skipping Probes/SAS development to finance ISRU and play a la Heinlein/C Clarke/Space Cadet, the very concept DO require a minimal amount of rules you don't seem to realize.

Like what?

For example : if Kerbal Science don't have to make a minimum of sense, then why not have NO rocket engine in the tech-tree until the last level ? Oh that's right ! The Devs arbitrarily decided of the order.

That's not a rule for rocket-punk style gameplay, you're being silly.

By the way, I hope you realize the tech-tree as it is now is just a placeholder. As we approach final I expect a LOOOOT of suggestion thread about "remaking the tech tree right !", "need small engine for Mercury like historical flight".

[citation needed]

You are just overreacting at the fear of a linear campaign and rejecting things that are the building-bloc of good video game. It's like asking for a strategy game but not wanting to be restrained by things like "balanced unit".

Now look who's making exaggerated claims to back up their argument...

I can assure you, you would feel disappointed by a Career-mode made on your criteria : A sandbox score-system where budget, science, Kerbal-training, observatory, and tech-tree is meaningless because to not restrain anybody.... there's no actual restriction.

Yes, because that's totally what I've been arguing for here.

ps : I had forgot about that one, "can't get to Duna because the observatory couldn't see it". Not the best excuse but better than letting Apollo land there around 1980.

Now I know you're a troll. I, too, should get a second account for trolling.

[Kegereneku]

Am I called a Troll for pointing out "Space observatory" is indeed on the "Planned feature list" or because of the usual historical analogy ? Are you trolling me ?

1) It's no wonder we had a misunderstanding so long if you didn't paid attention before. I don't really have more to say.

For the question : How about "Balancing the amount of science gathered in a manned versus robotic way". It's obvious to me, but you don't seem to consider that bad in the BETA-Career mode.

2) You missed the point of the 2nd quote, the Rocketpunk ambiance have nothing to do with basic verisimilitude.

3) Why would I need a citation for a jokes about something easy to imagine happening ? Though, there might already be some guy complaining about having only the LV-T30 on "his Mercury".

4) Yes, some of your arguments was (IMO) calling for something as ridiculous. I'll let you figure out why now.

If you are just going to answer like that from now, we should just end this discussion here and avoid a debate next time. Or continue with PM.

[regex]

we should just end this discussion here

That's a good point as I can't make any sense of your inconsistent arguments. Thanks for the laughs, I guess? vOv