Career Mode

[FREEFALL1984]

I have perused a few threads and have seen this/ a similiar topic mentioned before, but rather than necro I thought I'd start afresh,

So here's my idea, this is purely what I would like to see KSP become in its lifetime.

After 0.24, when credits come into play, there should be an optional mission system, for instance the first mission would be something like "launch a kerbal in a rocket and recover him alive" obviously this would be a simple sub orbital hop and on recovery, not only will you be awarded the standard science points based on the completion of the mission and experiments performed, but you will have your "budget" increased accordingly on completion. The "budget" would be the amount of funds added each day, also as you hire more astronauts, you must pay each one of them a weekly salary based on their stats. although you will always have Jeb, bill and bob to start with, who are always unpaid. later missions could include things like "launch a telescope into a 300km polar orbit" "create a communications network with 6 geostationary satellites" or "design and launch the first segment of a space station" all satellites and space stations launched into orbit remain in place for use on later missions or in case of emergency. Each launch will also add a very small amount to your budget and each new science node would incur a small weekly cost to account for the an incremental increase in research funds required as you advance through the tech tree.

All parts and stages falling back to kerbin and not being destroyed would refund you a certain amount of the original item value which would vary depending on the proximity to the KSP (perhaps 90% for landing on or near the KSP) with additional reductions for landing items in tough to access biomes (such as 50% for landing something on the poles)

There can also be things like fines for not complying with IKSA (international kerbal spacetravel association) rules, who would be a governing body managing the space exploration industry. This could include huge fines for dropping nuclear components on kerbin, killing kerbinaughts, leaving kerbals on other planetary bodies for extended periods with no means of return or leaving them in EVA for extended periods, as well as smaller fines for components which hit kerbin and are destroyed and debris left in orbit with peri of lower than 150km. Also grants could be provided for designing affordable space travel via SSTO craft. and mission by mission bonuses for recovering a large proportion of used parts, only using solar panels and other such perks would provide you with a small bonus. Generally all financial gains or losses would be balanced to provide you with more than adequate funds to run the space program and remain in profit, although woefully inept players might find themselves in the red and having to make cutbacks.

Adding these elements would allow for a variable difficulty, perhaps where "easy mode" means you don't have to pay fines or kerbinaught wages and all parts hitting kerbin are recovered for full value. "Medium Mode" would allow for all aspects apart from no charges for fallen parts and increased recovery value "Hard Mode" would mean all elements above are applied in full, and of course there would be a "Hardcore Mode" where there is no option to revert craft to launch or VAB.

The management of your space program would add a nice new angle to the game, and of course sandbox mode will remain for the players who don't want to play this way, Perhaps also having a "classic" career mode would mean people could continue to play their old careers without worrying about finances

[DoctorCruz]

I have perused a few threads and have seen this/ a similiar topic mentioned before, but rather than necro I thought I'd start afresh,

So here's my idea, this is purely what I would like to see KSP become in its lifetime.

After 0.24, when credits come into play, there should be an optional mission system, for instance the first mission would be something like "launch a kerbal in a rocket and recover him alive" obviously this would be a simple sub orbital hop and on recovery, not only will you be awarded the standard science points based on the completion of the mission and experiments performed, but you will have your "budget" increased accordingly on completion. The "budget" would be the amount of funds added each day, also as you hire more astronauts, you must pay each one of them a weekly salary based on their stats. although you will always have Jeb, bill and bob to start with, who are always unpaid. later missions could include things like "launch a telescope into a 300km polar orbit" "create a communications network with 6 geostationary satellites" or "design and launch the first segment of a space station" all satellites and space stations launched into orbit remain in place for use on later missions or in case of emergency. Each launch will also add a very small amount to your budget and each new science node would incur a small weekly cost to account for the an incremental increase in research funds required as you advance through the tech tree.

All parts and stages falling back to kerbin and not being destroyed would refund you a certain amount of the original item value which would vary depending on the proximity to the KSP (perhaps 90% for landing on or near the KSP) with additional reductions for landing items in tough to access biomes (such as 50% for landing something on the poles)

There can also be things like fines for not complying with IKSA (international kerbal spacetravel association) rules, who would be a governing body managing the space exploration industry. This could include huge fines for dropping nuclear components on kerbin, killing kerbinaughts, leaving kerbals on other planetary bodies for extended periods with no means of return or leaving them in EVA for extended periods, as well as smaller fines for components which hit kerbin and are destroyed and debris left in orbit with peri of lower than 150km. Also grants could be provided for designing affordable space travel via SSTO craft. and mission by mission bonuses for recovering a large proportion of used parts, only using solar panels and other such perks would provide you with a small bonus. Generally all financial gains or losses would be balanced to provide you with more than adequate funds to run the space program and remain in profit, although woefully inept players might find themselves in the red and having to make cutbacks.

Adding these elements would allow for a variable difficulty, perhaps where "easy mode" means you don't have to pay fines or kerbinaught wages and all parts hitting kerbin are recovered for full value. "Medium Mode" would allow for all aspects apart from no charges for fallen parts and increased recovery value "Hard Mode" would mean all elements above are applied in full, and of course there would be a "Hardcore Mode" where there is no option to revert craft to launch or VAB.

The management of your space program would add a nice new angle to the game, and of course sandbox mode will remain for the players who don't want to play this way, Perhaps also having a "classic" career mode would mean people could continue to play their old careers without worrying about finances

These all seem like pretty good ideas. I especially liked this one:

All parts and stages falling back to kerbin and not being destroyed would refund you a certain amount of the original item value which would vary depending on the proximity to the KSP (perhaps 90% for landing on or near the KSP) with additional reductions for landing items in tough to access biomes (such as 50% for landing something on the poles)

That would be a great idea once currency is introduced. Maybe also you could be fined for leaving debris in orbit?

[FREEFALL1984]

These all seem like pretty good ideas. I especially liked this one:

That would be a great idea once currency is introduced. Maybe also you could be fined for leaving debris in orbit?

indeed, perhaps on a "medium" game the item must have an periaps of >150km in order to be deemed none hazardous, and in the "hard" game the item must have a Peri of 500km in order to be deemed none hazardous. and in hardcore, the stages must either fall back to kerbin or reach escape velocity

[Kasuha]

I think you have basically described contracts system up to come in 0.24.

I think refunds for parts returned on Kerbin surface are not a good idea within current game mechanics. People will start mounting parachutes on their boosters and complaining that the game "eats" them as soon as they leave 2.5 km radius from the ship. If there is no such incentive, they'll not care about dropping parts to burn in atmosphere.

I also don't like the idea of penalties for certain parts being dropped on Kerbin or for Kerbal casualties. It may be just my opinion but I think it would make the game less fun.

[Red Iron Crown]

I also don't like the idea of penalties for certain parts being dropped on Kerbin or for Kerbal casualties. It may be just my opinion but I think it would make the game less fun.

This. I feel bad enough when I kill a kerbal, a fine would just be rubbing salt in the wound. Though I could probably deal with a cost associated with hiring a new kerbal, which amounts to the same thing.

As for being penalized for dropping nukes to the surface, I suspect that's going to be an unlikely scenario when money matters. Few players are going to throw away an expensive orbital engine by dropping it into Kerbin's atmosphere. If you're dropping nuclear engines during ascent, there's something very inefficient in your design, even without factoring cost in.

[FREEFALL1984]

I think refunds for parts returned on Kerbin surface are not a good idea within current game mechanics. People will start mounting parachutes on their boosters and complaining that the game "eats" them as soon as they leave 2.5 km radius from the ship. If there is no such incentive, they'll not care about dropping parts to burn in atmosphere.

The current trajectory of the components could be calculated shortly after decoupling to define the approximate landing site and the number of parachutes vs the weight of ejected parts could be calculated to determine the impact speed of the items, it can all be pre calculated based on known figures so would not really require full physics simulation. This way you can be awarded/penalized funds at the approximate landing/impact times. Not actual impact times which may never actually occur

As for being penalized for dropping nukes to the surface, I suspect that's going to be an unlikely scenario when money matters. Few players are going to throw away an expensive orbital engine by dropping it into Kerbin's atmosphere. If you're dropping nuclear engines during ascent, there's something very inefficient in your design, even without factoring cost in.

Of course dropping nuclear components into the atmosphere doesn't happen in an ideal mission, but in the event of something going wrong, such as a rocket collapsing (in my previously mentioned "hardcore mode") or an interplanetary probe perhaps crashing into the surface by accident on its return journey. Then the player should be penalized for poor design

[Red Iron Crown]

Of course dropping nuclear components into the atmosphere doesn't happen in an ideal mission, but in the event of something going wrong, such as a rocket collapsing (in my previously mentioned "hardcore mode") or an interplanetary probe perhaps crashing into the surface by accident on its return journey. Then the player should be penalized for poor design

They're already penalized by paying for a craft that fails its mission, a fine is kicking them when they're down, IMHO.

[Kasuha]

The current trajectory of the components could be calculated shortly after decoupling to define the approximate landing site and the number of parachutes vs the weight of ejected parts could be calculated to determine the impact speed of the items, it can all be pre calculated based on known figures so would not really require full physics simulation. This way you can be awarded/penalized funds at the approximate landing/impact times. Not actual impact times which may never actually occur

This is exactly what I had on mind. Yes, sure, lots of things can be done about it, but it is way less work to not do it in the first place. If bringing or not bringing parts safely back to Kerbin makes no difference, you don't need to be bothered about what happened to them.

[DoctorCruz]

I think you have basically described contracts system up to come in 0.24.

I think refunds for parts returned on Kerbin surface are not a good idea within current game mechanics. People will start mounting parachutes on their boosters and complaining that the game "eats" them as soon as they leave 2.5 km radius from the ship. If there is no such incentive, they'll not care about dropping parts to burn in atmosphere.

I also don't like the idea of penalties for certain parts being dropped on Kerbin or for Kerbal casualties. It may be just my opinion but I think it would make the game less fun.

Well even though the game stops loading them, their trajectory is still calculated correct? Oh, but maybe not the continued effect of the parachutes. I'm sure that could be fixed.

[Joonatan1998]

This is exactly what I had on mind. Yes, sure, lots of things can be done about it, but it is way less work to not do it in the first place. If bringing or not bringing parts safely back to Kerbin makes no difference, you don't need to be bothered about what happened to them.

But it would add a reason to desing rockets to be reuseable, You could choose if you want to add parachutes to save money or not use parachutes and carry heavier payload to the orbit.

Many people wan't to be bothered about what happens to their parts.

[FREEFALL1984]

This is exactly what I had on mind. Yes, sure, lots of things can be done about it, but it is way less work to not do it in the first place. If bringing or not bringing parts safely back to Kerbin makes no difference, you don't need to be bothered about what happened to them.

Indeed, of course doing nothing would be easier than doing something about it, and if not bringing parts back to the surface made no difference then nobody would worry about it.

But if games developers worked with that philosophy, then landing on the surface of a planet wouldn't make a difference or be necessary to the career advancement and therefore it wouldn't be possible, so there would be no landing legs. Ships wouldn't require power to operate because its simply easier not to bother. They wouldn't require fuel because its just another unnecessary element to make the game more complicated, and there would be just one item in the VAB and it would be called "rocket" because building rockets can be hard and its easier to not bother and it would reduce the memory demands on the game since it would be easier to not have to simulate the physics on all those individual parts.

Actually it would be "easier" is KSP was just a text based game where the user types the word "launch" and then a video of one of the apollo launches is selected at random....

In fact there wouldn't be a KSP, or any games for that matter.

The thing is we don't play KSP because it's easy, we play it because it's challenging, enjoyable and satisfying. Some choose to play sandbox, some choose to play career mode, but either way due to KSP being a beta, the addition of game mechanics is inevitable, and in my opinion, having to return items from orbit for financial gain would be an interesting an easily implemented element.

[DoctorCruz]

Indeed, of course doing nothing would be easier than doing something about it, and if not bringing parts back to the surface made no difference then nobody would worry about it.

But if games developers worked with that philosophy, then landing on the surface of a planet wouldn't make a difference or be necessary to the career advancement and therefore it wouldn't be possible, so there would be no landing legs. Ships wouldn't require power to operate because its simply easier not to bother. They wouldn't require fuel because its just another unnecessary element to make the game more complicated, and there would be just one item in the VAB and it would be called "rocket" because building rockets can be hard and its easier to not bother and it would reduce the memory demands on the game since it would be easier to not have to simulate the physics on all those individual parts.

Actually it would be "easier" is KSP was just a text based game where the user types the word "launch" and then a video of one of the apollo launches is selected at random....

In fact there wouldn't be a KSP, or any games for that matter.

The thing is we don't play KSP because it's easy, we play it because it's challenging, enjoyable and satisfying. Some choose to play sandbox, some choose to play career mode, but either way due to KSP being a beta, the addition of game mechanics is inevitable, and in my opinion, having to return items from orbit for financial gain would be an interesting an easily implemented element.

Bravo! You sir, deserve a hearty round of clapping. Wonderful speech!

[Kasuha]

But it would add a reason to desing rockets to be reuseable, You could choose if you want to add parachutes to save money or not use parachutes and carry heavier payload to the orbit.

Many people wan't to be bothered about what happens to their parts.

Roleplaying a reusable space program is one thing. You're free to have fun any way you like.

Forcing everybody to build one is something completely different.

By the way, "reusable" US space shuttle program was nowhere near as economical as people like to imagine. In fact, it was not economical at all because refitting all reusable parts was in the end more expensive than building new, single-use ones.

Why should we be forced to play "american dream" which in reality did not work?

[Joonatan1998]

You would not be forced to use parachutes, in many cases it would be easier to not use them.

I don't think that the money you would get back should be very high, just enough to make shuttles/spaceplanes compete with rockets in some situations. And make it worth it to add parachutes to rockets in some situations (when using some of the more expensive engines)

The whole point of the career mode is to limit what you can do, if it didn't it would be just like sandbox, and this wouldn't even limit you in any way, this would give you the freedom to use shuttles/spaceplanes in career mode without ruining your whole economy.

[FREEFALL1984]

Roleplaying a reusable space program is one thing. You're free to have fun any way you like.

Forcing everybody to build one is something completely different.

By the way, "reusable" US space shuttle program was nowhere near as economical as people like to imagine. In fact, it was not economical at all because refitting all reusable parts was in the end more expensive than building new, single-use ones.

Why should we be forced to play "american dream" which in reality did not work?

No of course we shouldn't be "forced" to play anything, I believe that's why many games, including KSP have sandbox modes, but in order for a game to have effective career progression, it requires certain dynamics which limit the options for the player and make the game challenging. I'm completely aware that KSP is a sandbox type game, but then look at games such as rollercoaster tycoon, the sim city games among many others, the career modes where enjoyable because they limited the decisions for the player and forced them to think creatively in order to meet certain requirements. An unorthadox parallel would be the Elder scrolls games, which allow the players to go wherever they wanted and do anything they wanted right from the start, and of course there are optional missions, but there are always the same key dynamics, for instance if you steal you get fined. KSP needs similar dynamics in order for the career to stay interesting, currently, asides from the tech tree and science which is simply a very basic progressive limitation system, there is no such dynamic to speak of, and if they introduce finances, there needs to be a way to, gain, lose and economize those finances, without simply spending them in the VAB otherwise they simply have a secondary limitation system rather than a funds and management system... besides the recovery of components would not be mandatory, people would be free to take it or leave it, but when times are tight and the game gets tough, it would be a thrifty idea to keep used components for reuse

Edited March 21, 2014 by FREEFALL1984

[Kasuha]

I don't see single reason why the game should give you any money for delivering scrap metal back on Kerbin. The price you would eventually get for it might be covered by purchase price of new components just well.

In fact I believe some kind of economical nerf for SSTO spaceplanes will be needed for the game to work - otherwise it will be that either SSTOs will be insanely overpowered, or in the worst case even necessary to progress in game.

I don't have anything against SSTOs, they are fun to build and play. But it would be a shame if their economics discouraged players from building classic rockets which stage, lose parts, and return only fraction of their initial mass. Because these are the kind of vehicles which are more economical in real world, and they are the kind of vehicles initially intended to be used in this game.

[FREEFALL1984]

I don't have anything against SSTOs, they are fun to build and play. But it would be a shame if their economics discouraged players from building classic rockets which stage, lose parts, and return only fraction of their initial mass. Because these are the kind of vehicles which are more economical in real world, and they are the kind of vehicles initially intended to be used in this game.

The obvious disadvantage of building an SSTO spaceplane in KSP is the same as building an SSTO spaceplane in real life (if it existed) in that the maximum payload would be effectively restricted to a relatively low amount compared to lower altitude craft, in real life large cargo planes can happily carry weights up to 250 tons to moderately high altitudes in real life, but then try doubling that altitude and adding all the required hardware to provide adequate life support for the crew and fuel and oxidizer as well as all the other requirements of rendezvousing docking and navigating in a low earth orbit as well as the structural improvements and heat shielding that wouldn't leave much for payload. I have the same problems in KSP, my SSTOs cannot carry much more than 3 or 4 tonnes into an LKO and that only just leaves enough Dv to make a rendezvous and return to kerbin, if I want to travel any further I generally need to jettison engines or build a very small SSTO which carries nothing but its own weight.

Also your economy statement confuses me, you state that a conventional rocket which loses components as lifts off is MORE economical than an SSTO would be? surely you have that backwards

[Javster]

That's a very well made and presented idea!

[Red Iron Crown]

Also your economy statement confuses me, you state that a conventional rocket which loses components as lifts off is MORE economical than an SSTO would be? surely you have that backwards

It consumes less fuel, has less mass and complexity than an SSTO for a given payload. Recertifying the SSTO to fly again costs about the same as building a new rocket from scratch. And the SSTO will eventually wear out, so costs can only be amortized over a finite number of flights.

It is counterintuitive, but holds true in the real world so far for reusable craft (no real SSTO exists AFAIK).

[Kasuha]

Also your economy statement confuses me, you state that a conventional rocket which loses components as lifts off is MORE economical than an SSTO would be? surely you have that backwards

Any non-reusable component needs to endure one liftoff and one reentry. That's all, after that its life ends and it is scrapped.

Any reusable component needs to endure number of liftoffs and reentries. Real world materials age, and they age the faster the more stress they must deal with. You don't need to make the component again, but you need to check it every time it is used and you need to check it much more thoroughly than a single-use component because beside manufacturing faults, aging faults may appear in it, too.

Putting reusable boosters aside, a space shuttle is a hell lot of weight which you need to lift to space just to bring it back. You need to make sure whole plane can endure atmospheric reentry, not just the return capsule. And you are sending the whole shuttle regardless how big your real payload is.

Space shuttle was a great symbol and certain missions would be impossible or very hard without it, but its real cost was astronomical. Shuttle was chosen because it looked like it will pay off, assuming at least 30 launches a year. Reality was not even close to that and it was much more complicated to prepare the shuttle for another launch than originally anticipated. NASA could have sent twice the amount of payload to orbit for the same money using conventional rockets if they didn't have the shuttle program to care about.

Of course this is KSP and it does not have to be completely realistic. As I wrote before, SSTOs are cool. I like them. But they should not be the ultimate weapon in this game.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Kasuha

[Joonatan1998]

I think that it is silly that you can have an ssto that you use to go to orbit many times without repairing it if you make an system with docking ports to refuel it at KSC but if you recover it it suddenly becomes worthless scrap metal.

If you make ssto's worthless once recovered, you should also prevent refueling and using them several times without recovering.

[SpacedCowboy]

So all the good little Kerbalnauts are gonna' start strategically placing parachutes on all the staged parts so they can safely float down the surface?,.,.,. Ridiculous Just speaking for myself here but I'm sure others would agree, I have enough trouble designing a decent launch vehicle, let alone worrying about where some empty fuel tank lands!

[Kasuha]

I was thinking about it a little and my idea was that contracts might work with two kinds of money: when you accept (or win) a contract, you first get some construction budget and you can build whatever you want for this budget but if you don't use all the money available within it, the rest will just disappear. So there will be no "oh I have an SSTO, I can keep all the money and don't need to build anything".

If the budget is too low then you'll need to add from your own money, of course.

So regardless whether you're using an SSTO or classical rocket, you don't get any money during this phase, you can only get some rocket parts which cannot be converted to money later.

When you finish the mission (successfully), you get some extra money directly on your account but this amount will be order of magnitude lower than initial construction budget.

And no refunds. Whatever you build is yours, it is insured for environmental damage (so cleaning up debris is free of charge) but you also get no money back on faulty parts.

This will not remove the advantage of SSTOs completely, but it can remove part of it. In the sense that they will still allow you to build more and reach further but will not be the ultimate weapon.

Of course I have no idea what approach devs will use. I just hope they'll avoid all pitfalls of the game variety.

[Zuni]

This is a good idea. I would like to see all the points in the OP.

According to NASA's research on their new Grasshopper, they can save about 70% cost by landing their boosters again. In KSP I think it would be great if you got a refund for landing something.

[jwenting]

parts falling back should get you money?

NASA would love that, right now they're more likely to get sued because it fell on someone's pet begonia or the EPA gets angry because it killed a pink spotted green burrowing rat...