An alternative idea for a career mode

[TJ_Tas]

I will probably not be popular here but I really do not like the way the career mode works. Now this may be a mindset thing here, My enjoyment with Kerbal is experimenting with designs and performing tricky maneuvers. In short to me its about the journey not the arrival, but its only the arrival you get a reward for. There is no reward for complex flight planning and test flying. Surely this should be the very basis of science for a space career. I recently performed a probe mission to Duna. I launched from Kerbin, did a sling shot maneuver around mun then a partial aerobraking into Duna orbit. I landed and with 4 experiments (- the transmission cost) I netted about 75-100 science. To me this should have been multiplied by the number of SOI changes in the journey. Think of the scientific impact of the early mars landers this was no trivial achievement.

I think a better system would run on 2 levels. Firstly the science level similar to what we have now but with some tweaks and additions. The second level would be efficiency of parts. To start with you would have a basic engine, a basic fuel tank, some basic fins and a gyro stabilizer (think V2). All of their efficiency would be around 50% this would mean they would develop 50% of their maximum power. Every time you use something you a). Get a trickle of science (1 per 10 km traveled or something) distance per point would increase over time, . the efficiency would go up by a random amount which is maxed at say 1/3rd of the gap between current levels and maximum (so you can never actually achieve 100% efficiency). Each time you unlock a new set of parts their efficiency is at 50%. This would change the onus to encourage test flights and unmanned flights to improve your capabilities.

Edited February 15, 2014 by TJ_Tas

[ThomasNY]

It would make things interesting. For example you run a mission with a proven design and something goes tits up, so you might have an Apollo situation. That way you would have to plan out possible failures and incorporate redundancies into designs. Maybe to make it so that it is easier for newer players it would be a good idea to make the failures optional, that way they don't get frustrated too much.

Edited February 15, 2014 by ThomasNY

[Nemrav]

as far as reliability of parts goes, you better edit your post before it gets rage and the concept here gets ignored....

But yes, it would be neat to have a boost in gain for when you achieve a first..

I think you shall simply have to wait until v0.24 and see what contracts bring us..

cheers

[regex]

Sounds pretty grindy, tbh. I don't think the game should encourage unmanned flights over manned flights either, but I suppose that's personal; I think probe missions are easier and carry much less risk.

It might be kind of nice to gain more science from complicated maneuvers but you can already do this to a certain extent by carrying additional instruments and performing experiments in those extra SOIs. Maybe pods should be allowed to carry multiple crew reports that aren't duplicates.

[TJ_Tas]

as far as reliability of parts goes, you better edit your post before it gets rage and the concept here gets ignored....

But yes, it would be neat to have a boost in gain for when you achieve a first..

I think you shall simply have to wait until v0.24 and see what contracts bring us..

cheers

Whats wrong with what I said about Reliability?

[Shna_na]

Whats wrong with what I said about Reliability?

The Devs have already said that they don't want random events of any kind - they want all players to have the same experience in their own way. Reliability is a semi-random event that is determined by a % chance of something failing. It's enough of a random event for the devs to disregard and enough for most players (such as me) to be less attracted to.

[Captain Sierra]

The Devs have already said that they don't want random events of any kind - they want all players to have the same experience in their own way. Reliability is a semi-random event that is determined by a % chance of something failing. It's enough of a random event for the devs to disregard and enough for most players (such as me) to be less attracted to.

Random failures are really a highly polarized topic. What I want to see (and I may be the only one) is the ability to trigger failures via action groups, if purely for some awesome cinematic effects and for when I get bored, make my left booster blow up.

[Shna_na]

Random failures are really a highly polarized topic. What I want to see (and I may be the only one) is the ability to trigger failures via action groups, if purely for some awesome cinematic effects and for when I get bored, make my left booster blow up.

That's a pretty good point. It's not a random failure, it's entirely optional, so I don't see why this would be an issue. And I'd quite like more options for cinematics (not a high priority though - gameplayer>cinematics).

[TJ_Tas]

OK did not know about the reliability debate. First post edited. THough I have to say Like the second post I think it would be good for Apollo 13 type scenarios to happen. System failure is a reality in space travel.

[Shna_na]

OK did not know about the reliability debate. First post edited. THough I have to say Like the second post I think it would be good for Apollo 13 type scenarios to happen. System failure is a reality in space travel.

I think he's referring to how Armstrong had to take the reigns and steer them away from some lethal terrain. That already does happen in the game - have you ever been in a situation where you need to change course? I certainly have: there have been several occasions where my landing zone is on too much of a gradient for it to be a risk worth taking and I've had to go all Apollo on that stuff.