The funnest missions are the early ones

[RocketBlam]

The most fun I've had in KSP is the early missions - orbiting Kerbin, landing on the moon, returning from the moon. Landing on Duna was a fun challenge too. The later missions I've done have been rewarding, but they don't match the thrill of the early ones. Returning a Kerbal from Eve was really difficult, and it took so long to accomplish that it got less fun.

I personally think that Mun and Minmus need fewer biomes. You can probably fill out the tech tree with just Mun and Minmus missions. In fact I'm sure you can. 3-4 biomes per moon/planet is probably a good number.

That's just my experience. I've played this game a lot since I got it.

[federally]

The new parts really messed up the tech tree in my opinion. Once you get the node with the mainsail and the new liquid fueled boosters getting huge payloads into orbit is trivial and the rest of the science can do easily be earned all the challenge is removed.

Then again in the beginning you are so limited on parts the few first launches are boring because of how little toy can do on them.

So I think the missions after you get the first two or three upgrades are really the most exciting. You have enough parts to make an interesting rocket and set some exciting goals, but you're still limited enough that it's a challenge to build and fly successfully.

[zarakon]

I agree on the biomes

Doing a whole bunch of crew/eva reports and gravity scans from polar orbit can rack up a crazy amount of science while being quite boring

[FenrirWolf]

I dunno man, as great as my first orbit and first Mun landings were, my most satisfying experiences came later. My first Apollo-style Duna mission, followed by bringing an SSTO spaceplane to landing on Laythe and back again without refueling, those are some of my favorite accomplishments in any game ever.

[Hurry- Starfish!]

I personally think that Mun and Minmus need fewer biomes. You can probably fill out the tech tree with just Mun and Minmus missions. In fact I'm sure you can. 3-4 biomes per moon/planet is probably a good number.

100% agreed.

Kerbin has the perfect amount, because it's very diverse and easy to get to (and doesn't give much science), but not so the Mün. It's about time we get biomes for all the other bodies instead. They have much less features than Kerbin, so they should get fewer biomes. Instead of making a dozen ones that mostly look and feel the same, I think that having something like highlands + lowlands + poles and mabye one or two of the largest craters (or if applicable, the ocean) would be sufficient.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Hurry, Starfish!

[helaeon]

I'd go to the various biomes, and repeatedly, if there were more funny things (like the Community Science Project's stuff). It's like a wonderful surprise, I don't even care about the science. I want the discovery of laughter and fun.

Science is about repetition so there should be a reward to returning places later. But I don't think the science points alone are necessarily the right reward, but I am at a loss to what is. I'd be somewhat for not reducing the biomes, but reducing the total science that could be extracted and some measurements being greatly reduced in their value (like the temperature scan), though I think surface samples should remain very valuable including repeats. Maybe in .24 you'll get tons of money for surface samples.

I feel no need to go back to Duna as I've visited all the anomalies and there is one biome. Moho should have been a bit more of an accomplishment but felt kind of like a milk run, maybe would have been better if I had a target I was looking for or neat thing to see on the surface rather than landing where it was the most convenient.

[magnemoe]

100% agreed.

Kerbin has the perfect amount, because it's very diverse and easy to get to (and doesn't give much science), but not so the Mün. It's about time we get biomes for all the other bodies instead. They have much less features than Kerbin, so they should get fewer biomes. Instead of making a dozen ones that mostly look and feel the same, I think that having something like highlands + lowlands + poles and mabye one or two of the largest craters (or if applicable, the ocean) would be sufficient.

I tend to start with two suborbital missions, the second is goo+ material lab and might go into orbit, second is an Mun flyby with optional orbit if enough fuel and power. next is Minmus including jumping, 3-4 biomes, next includes landing in all biomes, waiting with the previous visited until I dropped all the goo and material labs. This pretty much fills out the tree, and an rover mission to Mun finish it.

[Kerbonautical]

I also find I prefer working with bodies orbiting Kerbin, partly due to the necessity to carry large amounts of fuel and also due to the unusual difficulty I have in getting a planetary intercept. But the main reason is because the travel has zero pay off for me, once I've been to each one I don't feel any need to go back. In general most of my time is spent building functioning space programs that have no actual purpose other than 'oh look it works!'. This is pretty much the same thing with planetary bodies right now, there's very little reason to do it other than for the hell of it.

The thing that sucks about this is that if you're playing career then by the time you are ready to travel to other planets, generally you've probably unlocked most of the tech tree meaning this is where your ships will become creative designs spurring innovative solutions to your problems....except there's not much reason to do it other than seeing the planet, which can be done a lot faster from map mode. Most of those precious science points will have been harvested off the Mun or Minmus instead and I'd hazard a guess that most of us are using almost identical ships to do it too.

I recently tried career mode again on .23.5 and have again been deterred twice in a week and deleted both saves, heading back to sandbox mode after using one ships slightly tweaked twice to fill the entire tech. Personally I feel it's the design of the career mode as it is currently that causes this and that a money system alone won't fix this problem in the game. As a space program simulator of sorts we need to be rewarded for actually having a proper space program, we need points for functional space stations and the points for science on bodies other than Kerbin need to be nerfed pretty heavily. For me the career mode feels more like Kerbal Crash Test for now and the only time it plays like a space program simulator is when I impose restrictions upon myself.

I do love the game, but it feels oddly misdirected recently when playing career and as a result I've been avoiding the mode despite wanting to love it.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Kerbonautical

[NecroBones]

The new parts really messed up the tech tree in my opinion. Once you get the node with the mainsail and the new liquid fueled boosters getting huge payloads into orbit is trivial and the rest of the science can do easily be earned all the challenge is removed.

As much as I like the new parts, I have to agree with this. I think the 3.75m (ARM) rocket parts should have ALL been placed in a 1000-point tech box. They should be one of the harder things to unlock, at the end of the tree, so that you really earn them, and choosing to unlock them before a lot of other things will be a difficult choice.

[r4pt0r]

i think once all bodies have biomes, the science points required per node will raise greatly to balance it out.

[ArmchairGravy]

I limit myself to one science mission per body, though I'll hit multiple biomes at a time per mission. I don't think nerfing the science on Mun and Minmus would be good for the newer players. I would like to see more biomes on the other planets to provide an incentive to do more than one landing.

[InterCity]

I was young, i was stupid.

It leaded to some ridiculous attempts to make a super heavy rocket, before i learned to use struts.

Now i am wiser, and i build SSTO's instead. But i sometimes watch the screens from back then and laugh all night

[SkyRender]

I've actually confirmed that you can clear out the tech tree with just Minmus and the Mun. I recently came up with a Career mode path that takes 2 launches to unlock the entire tech tree, exploiting Minmus' and the Mun's biomes (as well as the absurd amount of EVA fuel Kerbals have and the fact that they get infinite free refills from command pods).

[Javster]

Yes. I've just started a new career mode save and I'm finding it really fun.

My favourite thing to do is set up a space station. It's really satisfying and I'm quite good at it. SSTOs/spaceplanes are fun too.

[vger]

I had a pretty detailed post about things that could be done to make science (and EVA's) much more interesting, and give different worlds their own unique challenges (besides just getting there and back). Something more in line with the kinds of things NASA wants to do. (For example, a probe on Europa would be doing COMPLETELY different things than one on Mars)

I think I got ONE reply.

Edited April 10, 2014 by vger

[RocketBlam]

It may be that Minmus and the Mun have so much science just because of the stage of development of the game. The debs probably know that getting interplanetary intercepts is too difficult and they're working on making them more doable. I don't do interplanetary without MechJeb. It's just too risky... Take off at the wrong time ore burn at the wrong time and you are lost in space. But I assume they're working on some of the MechJeb functionality for the vanilla game.

[NecroBones]

I had a pretty detailed post about things that could be done to make science (and EVA's) much more interesting, and give different worlds their own unique challenges (besides just getting there and back). Something more in line with the kinds of things NASA wants to do. (For example, a probe on Europa would be doing COMPLETELY different things than one on Mars)

I think I got ONE reply.

I think I missed that one.

[FenrirWolf]

Interplanetary travel actually got a lot easier in this update. Generating an encounter is about the same as before, but refining the encounter path is much more intuitive now that you can easily focus the camera on the target body.

When you do so, it now changes the conics view to 0 so you see your future path in the sphere of influence. That makes it a lot easier to further tune your encounter node and set up a burn, or just adjust the encounter directly with RCS translation.

It used to be really hard to tell if you were coming in on a prograde or retrograde encounter and now it's easy-peasy.

Edited April 10, 2014 by FenrirWolf

[vger]

I think I missed that one.

unique-mysteries-from-each-world-to-make-science-more-interactive?

[Pecan]

Remember career mode is just meant to be an interesting and playable tutorial, to introduce you to the things you'll be using in sandbox. Grinding science so you can complete the tech tree so you can ... what? ... isn't necessary or much fun once you understand how KSP works.

That said, I spend most of my time on missions around Kerbin or its moons because I'm usually testing new ships over and over. Knowing they have sufficient TWR and deltaV still leaves me to make sure solar panels aren't blocked, docked ships/modules have enough room, I've remembered a ladder (!), etc., etc. Plus, it's just quick fun shuttling ships around :-)

[That guy who builds stuff]

The new parts really messed up the tech tree in my opinion.

The tech tree has always been messed up. The updates just highlight the problems by getting rid of others.

[vger]

Remember career mode is just meant to be an interesting and playable tutorial, to introduce you to the things you'll be using in sandbox.

Uhh, no it isn't. If they wanted to give us a tutorial, they could do that. And they certainly wouldn't be adding contracts and reputation if it was all just there to prepare us for sandbox mode.

[Pecan]

You make a good point vger but I beg to differ, mainly because KSP isn't intended to be a game you 'win' by unlocking the tech tree. Since it's after 1.30am here though and I need to go to work in a few hours I won't look-up the dev's comments on it. Will you accept the caveat 'with science as it stands'?

Amyway, all things are subject to change before 1.0 :-)

[Madrias]

Me, I find the fun in KSP to be from building things that shouldn't possibly work, then making them do so. Ion engines got a big time buff and are actually useful now, so I'm farting around Kerbin in Sandbox mode with ion powered planes, and planning an Ion-only transfer/landing to Minmus.

[RocketBlam]

I don't want people to think I am ragging on the game. It's in Alpha, I understand that. I just want to provide some useful input. I'm sure the devs are fully aware of things that need to be fixed.

But speaking of that, I'm a graphic designer with 15 years experience who would love to work for Squad.