Spoilers for .26!

[deadshot462]

Aerodynamics partial update and new biomes? Good direction so far.

[tater]

This experience is exceptional to most of us pre-career players, I think. Did you do a lot of research before you started? Run tutorials? Watch "Let's Play"s? Played Orbiter previously? It took me some time in the 0.13 demo before I figured out how to actually get a ship into an orbit, and then when I really started playing in 0.20 I could barely get stuff into orbit until I watched ChickenKeeper24's videos where he actually built stuff. Took me a month at least before I was ready for Duna.

Maybe the game is much easier to learn now?

I played a couple of the tutorials, and messed with a couple of the scenarios (one of which was profoundly ugly… I turned the space station into… did you see Gravity?).

Never played orbiter, the last time I did orbital mechanics it was on paper (with my HP calculator) in my Lunar Bases class a rather long time ago (geology segment taught by (Harrison) Jack Schmidt).

[Superfluous J]

I wasn't quite as quick as tater, but not that slow either.

I was similar. I played in the .16 demo and all I had to go on was a single Kurt JMac video (His first one). I almost gave up trying to land on Mun but then found out about quicksave. I got through everything else up to that point without saving/loading once. Once I knew how to do that, I successfully landed in the very next mission and at that point I felt I could justify dropping the $25 or whatever dollars on the game. That was all in a single weekend. Probably not much more than a day.

[tater]

I've not done a quicksave yet. I figure if I get the lads in trouble, I need to rescue them.

[NWDogg]

Pretty interesting debate about where the science mechanic and career mode should be focused, and the direction it needs to take to fulfill everyone's playstyles. I think there is a major piece of the puzzle not being considered on either side, though, and that is 'What is the purpose of doing science and contracts, when the end result is obtainable from the get-go?' In other words, what is the end-game goal?

I think, no matter which direction you want to push the tech tree or science gains, there needs to be an underlying purpose to it all, other than 'more parts'. That purpose, in my mind, is a story mode. I imagine a fully fleshed out story (with multiple plot lines) that slowly begins at the beginning of the tech tree and contracts, builds itself up to near-climax at the end of the tech tree, and finally comes to conclusion well after the player has unlocked the final part. This would actually tie the science and contracts together, push the player further and further out into the system regardless of how fast they unlock parts, and give the player the satisfaction of an actual end-game goal that simply doesn't yet exist.

Of course, there are a few key mechanics I have in mind that may need to be implemented for this to work. New science gathering mechanics, a more structured contract system (you would need to write out contracts, rather than the randomized nonsense we get now), possibly a primitive AI system for a space-race type plot line (this sort of already exists, with the Kerbal rescue contracts...just needs expanded a bit), the 'Kerbal-world' itself would need to be canonized instead of left to interpretation (this one is probably the biggest hurdle). Not a huge amount of work, really, to get something basic...I don't see epic CG cut-scenes or extensive dialog, but simply using a slightly enhanced contract and science system to add that little bit of 'fluff' to flesh out the game world. Maybe, just maybe, you could get a different plot line with several different career saves, but even a completely scripted-event story system would drastically increase the usefulness of career, in my opinion.

I have actually been considering trying to tackle this with a mod. At a basic level, it probably wouldn't even require a plugin. Though to get something interesting going on it certainly would-- of which I'm more than unqualified at the moment to handle. Anyhow, sorry for the off-topic ramble...biomes are gonna be cool, right?

[Sandworm]

Pretty interesting debate about where the science mechanic and career mode should be focused, and the direction it needs to take to fulfill everyone's playstyles. I think there is a major piece of the puzzle not being considered on either side, though, and that is 'What is the purpose of doing science and contracts, when the end result is obtainable from the get-go?' In other words, what is the end-game goal?

There is no end-game goal. KSP is a sandbox game. The tech tree is a tutorial meant to ease new player into things without overwhelming them with parts menus. Currency is equally meant as a teaching aid that basically disappears once you know how to fly well enough. The "end-game" is a player with a basic understanding of KSP physics who understands the role of the various parts. They are then free to explore the KSP solar system. If there is an endgame, it's sandbox.

[Tw1]

I started KSP when the only thing you could do was make up something to do, which, I suppose, colors my perception of the game and how it is developing. Probably also why I don't think unlocking the tech tree needs to be the driving impetus behind doing things in the game. What does everyone do once they unlock the tech tree?

Same here. I find this to be a bit of a problem with. Career. The tech tree is a clear goal type thing to work towards, like occurs in many a game. It's something to focus on, and masks the 'here are rocket parts. There is space. Go!' Impression I recall getting when the game was only sandbox.

I think there needs to be better in game reasons given to run the spacey program. If it was my call, I'd have gene or someone give an introduction when you start a new game, giving you some more abstract goals for the space program, such as exploring space.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Tw1

[NWDogg]

There is no end-game goal. KSP is a sandbox game. The tech tree is a tutorial meant to ease new player into things without overwhelming them with parts menus. Currency is equally meant as a teaching aid that basically disappears once you know how to fly well enough. The "end-game" is a player with a basic understanding of KSP physics who understands the role of the various parts. They are then free to explore the KSP solar system. If there is an endgame, it's sandbox.

I won't argue that, because I agree with it. The satisfaction of being able to design your own missions, with your own restrictions, and carry them out is the fundamental basis of the game certainly. However, the career mode in my opinion is lacking. I don't see the story as being something you finish, and you then put the game down--rather, I see it as an extension of that 'tutorial' to make it more engaging and interesting. Nothing more than that. Career lacks the endgame goal, not the game itself.

[Hannu]

It could be something more interesting 'to do' like the impactor experiment from KSPI, or a big Science experiment that needs to be assembeld first out of modular big parts, or an experiment that needs to be manned, giving some purpose to manned missions, or an experiment that needs you to find something (other than a biome) not on any map, but randomly scattered, giving the game a more Explorationary taste , there are a lot ways to make it less of a clicking fest

I agree, that there should be more diverse ways to obtain science. Different things in different places, more experiments, also long time research projects etc. But eventually all is just clicking and watching when your things grow and numbers increase. The fun should be in building, flying and learning things and not achieving of nice game ending animation. You play as long as you feel it interesting and then change to other game. In every case there will be a situation when you have been everywhere, made every experiment, build huge constructions and learned orbital mechanics and building techniques so that you can just decide where you will go and then go there. My opinion is that free and endless sandbox game gives much more possibilities and interesting things than a game with strict goal, even if there was many ways to achieve the goal.

[Hannu]

Career lacks the endgame goal, not the game itself.

What kind of goal do you suggest? Some animation and congratulations when you get some amount of science points? In my opinion that would be very artificial. There are not endgame goals in real life careers. Neither individual working careers nor careers of communities like NASA. What is NASA's endgame goal? Some thing after which USA's government can say that NASA made everything we wanted and now we can close it down and arrange a big party.

[Tw1]

I think, no matter which direction you want to push the tech tree or science gains, there needs to be an underlying purpose to it all, other than 'more parts'. That purpose, in my mind, is a story mode. I imagine a fully fleshed out story (with multiple plot lines) that slowly begins at the beginning of the tech tree and contracts, builds itself up to near-climax at the end of the tech tree, and finally comes to conclusion well after the player has unlocked the final part. This would actually tie the science and contracts together, push the player further and further out into the system regardless of how fast they unlock parts, and give the player the satisfaction of an actual end-game goal that simply doesn't yet exist.

I disagree that a fully structured storyline is needed, part of the fun comes from making it up as you go- generating a kerbal history. But, something that could make it feel more like you're making this history would be ideal. An idea which has come up a few times- newspaper things like they had in some versions of simcity, which comment on your progress. They'd be largely reactive, but contain some speculation about what you would do next.

The only end game goal should be creating and running an economic, reliable and productive/awesome space program. Flying kerbals around the solar system, exploring, bringing in data, landing lots of kerbals on other planets, building up their experiences....

Though I agree something needs to mark the end of the tech tree, it, nor having visited all the biomes should seem like and end. A stage maybe, but not the end. Perhaps the tech tree could give you a message saying something like "And that's all the technology we can think of for now. Good luck!", to mark this.

Ideally, the game ought to prepare itself to suit the stages space travel is likely to go through. Initially, small, exploratory missions. Eventually, more permanent settlements. Small sample runs become less useful as they become more familiar with each planet.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Tw1

[Wanderfound]

One way to avoid the "end of the tech tree" problem is to have it continue with a near-endless succession of increasingly expensive nodes that contain nothing but science instruments. That would maintain game balance, require minimal programming work, and turn end-game science into more of a score-keeping mechanism than a grind for parts.

[Seshins]

Or parts of the tech tree could be locked until obtaining specific science from a planet/moon before you can advance on to the next one further out. or something similar.

[Creature]

There is no end-game goal. KSP is a sandbox game. The tech tree is a tutorial meant to ease new player into things without overwhelming them with parts menus. Currency is equally meant as a teaching aid that basically disappears once you know how to fly well enough. The "end-game" is a player with a basic understanding of KSP physics who understands the role of the various parts. They are then free to explore the KSP solar system. If there is an endgame, it's sandbox.

This gets tossed around a lot but I still have trouble understanding the logic behind it. If you're a new player who is struggling with Mun landing, how on earth is it supposed to help you that you're being denied access to fuel lines, rockets that are big enough to easily lift your lander, landing cans and solar panels in the first place? Honestly there aren't THAT many parts in stock game and they do follow a very intuitive and logical progression as in you have small engines, medium engines, big engines and huge engines for example.

Also if science is just a tutorial for new players, funds are just a tutorial for new players and tutorials are also a tutorial for new players then what is there for experienced players? If they are supposed to just zoom past the tech tree in a few missions, do a contract every now and then just to top off the fund reserve and play it as sandbox then why do they even play the career mode in the first place? If they don't enjoy progress, why play the progress game?

[TimberWolffe]

This gets tossed around a lot but I still have trouble understanding the logic behind it. If you're a new player who is struggling with Mun landing, how on earth is it supposed to help you that you're being denied access to fuel lines, rockets that are big enough to easily lift your lander, landing cans and solar panels in the first place? Honestly there aren't THAT many parts in stock game and they do follow a very intuitive and logical progression as in you have small engines, medium engines, big engines and huge engines for example.

I think the idea behind having very difficult mun landings at the start is to dramatically increase player skill rather than to ease them into it. You learn faster when things are harder for you, to be honest

[NWDogg]

What kind of goal do you suggest? Some animation and congratulations when you get some amount of science points? In my opinion that would be very artificial. There are not endgame goals in real life careers. Neither individual working careers nor careers of communities like NASA. What is NASA's endgame goal? Some thing after which USA's government can say that NASA made everything we wanted and now we can close it down and arrange a big party.

I think maybe I'm not clear. I'm not suggesting an 'ending' to reach. I'm suggesting that the contract and science system be used to tell a (or more than one) story, to add fluff to the career mode. Simply going through the story, even if just once, is this 'goal'. Again, the story wouldn't be the end-all of the game, it would simply extend the lifespan of career mode beyond the tech tree, and add something to do beyond getting more parts. Sure, doing your own thing is the real goal of the game--the story (told through contracts and science), like the tech tree, is just another part of career that pushes you towards accomplishing that.

The career mode starts out by giving you contracts from the Kerbal Record Keeping Organization (or whatever the name is) to achieve certain milestones. This is the basics of a story mode already. Just expand that idea. Specifically worded contracts that ask you to do certain things, for exampe, land on the Mun before a rival space agency. This would be accomplished through several contracts detailing what the other space agency is doing, how your testing is stacking up against theirs', how far they've made it so far etc.. A pre-built ship put into orbit with pre-defined maneuvers, acting as the rival's ship, could be the actual ship you have to beat to the Mun. You can try to just land before them, or maybe you will decide to destroy their ship- that could be up to the player. The rewards might be a bit more reputation than a regular contract, and like the others can simply be declined.

That's a very very simple (and not well thought-out) example of an early-game story line, but I think it illustrates the basic functionality of how it could work. The goal here is to not only complete a contract for money, science, and rep, but also to build on the game world. We know very little about Kerbal's world outside of the KSC..this would help us learn just a little bit more. Other 'plot lines' (or call them quests, or just contracts..doesn't really matter) could include things like searching for (and destroying?) the Kraken. Or a series of contracts that ask you to discover anomalies, all the while giving you some bits of back story (through science) as to why they might be there. The search for microbial life on Joolian moons (maybe you don't find any?) Any of these could work, but they are all basically just contracts and science- used in a way to tell a 'Kerbal' story, and add just a bit of gameplay and engagement to the end of the 'career tutorial.'

Nothing I'm suggesting is really unique, even...it's all been suggested before, and most of it already exists. In fact, the Science text file even refers to itself as the 'story'. I'm just suggesting expanding that a bit past the tech tree, and giving more of a reason for doing science and contracts beyond the desire for more parts.

[Creature]

I think the idea behind having very difficult mun landings at the start is to dramatically increase player skill rather than to ease them into it. You learn faster when things are harder for you, to be honest

What you said is true but I don't think it's intended to work that way. Anyways the consensus probably is that the tech tree could use some tweaking but besides that my original point still is that no matter how you arrange it, having less parts available makes things harder. Despite this it's said (by Harv himself) to be a tutorial for the game and help new players. I don't see how it's helping new players in any way as it only enforces restrictions on them. There are tutorials and there's sandbox where you can play around with designs and see what works and what doesn't if you have trouble in learning the ropes.

Once you learn the basic concepts the tech tree is just a small speedbump that neither really serves the new player (at least after one playthrough) nor really challenges the experienced player and it's too easy and fast to serve as a driving gameplay mechanic for the career mode. So effectively it's almost redundant for anyone else but the person who plays for the first time and has enough skill to overcome the challenge, not enough skill to breeze through it and who's not too unskilled to be halted by it. So it's a very small niche who actually experience this as a meaningful mechanic.

Luckily the new difficult options are some sort of remedy for this. But not to drift too far off-topic, I reeeeally hope they'd make science somehow more interactive with the biomes. I dream of having meaningful research stations and having to actually design the science payloads and experiments with the intended target in mind. As it is it's just "cram them all in and clickity-click once there."

[Sky_walker]

Game balance needs to be addressed, and from what it seems - it will be addressed once all pieces are in place (otherwise they'd have to make a huge balance overhaul after pretty much every patch that adds any large, game-impacting feature).

Despite this it's said (by Harv himself) to be a tutorial for the game and help new players.

That was true ages ago. Now campaign is pretty much the core of a gameplay. Tutorials are a separate thing.

Devs said that Sandbox mode was completed few patches ago. What they build since then is a core of the game: campagin - it'll probably take few more patches, but once it's done game will be pretty much scope-complete.

Right now you can consider Sandbox to be a tutorial for Campaign. It's simpler, it's got everything available right off the bat, it doesn't have any limitations on funds or science, got some of the buildings disabled, basically: the best point to learn the game in before doing serious stuff.

I think maybe I'm not clear. I'm not suggesting an 'ending' to reach. I'm suggesting that the contract and science system be used to tell a (or more than one) story, to add fluff to the career mode. Simply going through the story, even if just once, is this 'goal'. Again, the story wouldn't be the end-all of the game, it would simply extend the lifespan of career mode beyond the tech tree, and add something to do beyond getting more parts. Sure, doing your own thing is the real goal of the game--the story (told through contracts and science), like the tech tree, is just another part of career that pushes you towards accomplishing that.

The career mode starts out by giving you contracts from the Kerbal Record Keeping Organization (or whatever the name is) to achieve certain milestones. This is the basics of a story mode already. Just expand that idea. Specifically worded contracts that ask you to do certain things, for exampe, land on the Mun before a rival space agency.

Question is - do they even want to build a story?

From what I've seen so far - Devs are hardly interested in Kerbin system itself. I'm glad to see that they finally add biomes in 0.26 but I doubt there will be anything beyond that in terms of interplanetary travel. Obviously new biomes mean random contracts popping up in them, but (and I very much hope to be wrong here) I don't think they'll ever include a chain of missions for interplanetary travel and exploration similar to the one that exists already for landing on the moon.

[SkyRex94]

So this thread seems to become a disscussion about where the Career Mode in general should go, to fit everyones playstyle and imagination. And i think thats a good way.

For me i think the TechTree and the way of gaining Science needs an overhaul as i already pointed out.

Some pages ago i also used the Term 'Endgame', but seeing the debate about this i would like to clarify what at least I meant by 'Endgame'. I don't think we need a FINAL goal where the game is finished. What i meant is there should be a 'reason' why we are doing the things we are doing in career mode. Something like, you know, hey Jeb that trip to Vall wasn't for nothing. And that reason inside the gameworld, for immersion with the space program. Sure there is Fun for us as a player to go to Vall, or for Roleplay reasons or whatever you want to do in sandbox, but in career having a reason why the Kerbals are doing it gives you more immersion.

I don't think it'd be a good thing to ty Partunlocks onto 'Landed on planet X', as suggested earlier here, because that on the other hand would destroy the freedom to steer your Space Program where you want it and how you want it.

We already have the Science archieve collecting all the reports, maybe some change to that Science Archieve, giving it somewhat more meaning, could be the 'Endgame' reason we need.

And another personal thing: For me KSP is a game of Engineering and Exploration. The Engineering part is pretty good already, the Exploration not. In RL Space Agencies go to places, because they want to explore it, see what its like, gaining data about it, and see how it behaves.

There's not so much to see in KSP right now. What we would need is an immersive outfleshing of the planets, giving us things for the Exploration taste of the game. Right now, you go to Duna, land on Duna, see:'hmm its red and has some mountains', but no reason or feeling to do anything more than just do Science and go again.

So two ideas:

1. Static immersive objects: Like Vulcanos, Geysiers, Caves, Ice Volcanos, Waterfalls(Or Liquidfalls), Icebergs, Lava lakes, hot smokers, Solar erruptions. And these are static Game World Objects, like the Anomalies, but some of them animated of course.

2. Procedural Exploration: We all need the same Planets and the same Terrain, to be able to talk about and help each other to get to the different places. But this doesn't exclude that we could all have our own Exploration once we are where we wanted to go. Think of it as an advanced Ground Scatter, procedural generated things at random locations (depending on biome and planet), where everybody can explore and ecounter things for themselfes. Sure after quite a time we would all know what can be encountered in which biome but we can't point an exact location, giving everybody some reason to explore. (Ever heard from the game No Man's Sky?)

Some examples i have in mind: Different kinds of Animas on Kerbin in different biomes; Spots of different interesting soil(minerals, water traces) which can be researched for Science, on bodies that are ecentialy rocks(mun,ike,dres,Tylo); Bacteria hotspots in the oceans of Laythe; interesting Rock Formations, like the mun arches; shrap ice formations on geological active ice planets;

Why people land at anomailies, because they're interesting. Imagine a lot more interesting places but all in different locations for each player.

[Tw1]

And another personal thing: For me KSP is a game of Engineering and Exploration. The Engineering part is pretty good already, the Exploration not. In RL Space Agencies go to places, because they want to explore it, see what its like, gaining data about it, and see how it behaves.

1. Static immersive objects: Like Vulcanos, Geysiers, Caves, Ice Volcanos, Waterfalls(Or Liquidfalls), Icebergs, Lava lakes, hot smokers, Solar erruptions. And these are static Game World Objects, like the Anomalies, but some of them animated of course.

2. Procedural Exploration: We all need the same Planets and the same Terrain,

I pretty much agree with everything in this post, and particularly like your idea for procedural exploration.

Though, on 0.26's secret feature....

Lots of modeling..... May use code which allows craft to interact with static objects.....

Could it be the terrain detail objects?

[tater]

I agree with most of the above stuff.

As I pointed out in my very first post here (Late August, after like a weeks play), the science/tech system is seriously broken, IMO. I've been considering modding (new learning curve there) just to fix it as I think it's more than an alternate tree, or better contracts.

The "science" gathered in game is mostly planetary science (which would really have about zero impact of technological development, frankly), with some space medicine, and some spaceflight engineering in tot the mix (the latter 2 mostly from contracts, or simply abstracted as "planting a flag" on more and more distant bodies (longer duration flight, novel techniques required (Duna, Eve, etc)).

Science as a goal (abstract knowledge) is fine, I honestly think for players it's seeing cool places. Dolling up the planetary surfaces will help this a lot. I think about Minecraft. My kids play a lot, and I mess with it sometimes. I'm constantly amazed that they will show me a cool seed, and I actually want to push them, away from the computer, and explore a little, even though gameplay is effective unchanged, and it's all made with blocks… Landing and having some reason to want to poke around and just marvel at how cool it is is a powerful force in KSP.

End goals? Again, I am fine with open-ended, but I want in-game REASONS to do things. Yes, I can build a base if I like, yes I can build a station. There is not really a reason to do so in game. I want a reason. I like the idea of resources---in space---because they provide another reason to do something (which you can ignore if you like). I like the idea of construction, and more permanent facilities on the Mun, Duna, etc. Not landing things that I have to make Rube Goldberg machines to hook together (for no reason, since Kerbals would be happy forever standing on the surface in their suits). I want the ability to eventually tunnel (nuclear tunneler messed with at Los Alamos ages ago (had a lecture by the guy who worked on it), or to land habitat modules (lightweight), the bury them with regolith (shielding). I want a reason to do this though, perhaps extracting Hydrogen or Oxygen for use in life support or as fuel. I dunno, more options.

Some are not interested, but I'd like to have some automation, both real "robots" and kerbal pilots. For example, different probe cores capable of different autonomous actions, you start with remote control, then get some simple robots (a lander than can descend based on radar altimeter data, for example (thinking stuff that is really obligatory for something like RT to actually be realistic). Fleshes out the tech tree some, as for distant planets you'd need automation given large time delays for remote control. Kerbal pilots? Yeah. What's the point of tracking their abilities when they don't use them. The player can always chose to fly every mission 100%, but it would be nice to have some routine stuff done by your astronauts at some point (launch parts for a station or ship assembled in orbit, for example). Even stuff like you send a CM home, get involved in something else, forgetting it, and the pilot could at least reenter and deploy the chutes (I lost a ship not realizing that I could not have 2 ships reenter at the same time (docked to bring a ship home from the Mun, then separated for each to reenter and land… ooops).

[jfull]

Dont even care. BIOMES ON ALL BODIES CONFIRMED FOR .26!!!!!!!!1111!!111!!! :D

Hooooold on, he said to "expect" them, not that they are 100% confirmed. They may encounter unexpected problems, nobody knows yet.

I think that's part of the reason Squad isn't as transparent as they once were.

[lincourtl]

The "science" gathered in game is mostly planetary science (which would really have about zero impact of technological development, frankly)...

Heh. I gripe at the lack of planetary science, but we don't want to get into the who realism thing again.

Some are not interested, but I'd like to have some automation, both real "robots" and kerbal pilots...

I'd just like the ability to do more than one thing at a time.

[Superfluous J]

That purpose, in my mind, is a story mode. I imagine a fully fleshed out story (with multiple plot lines) that slowly begins at the beginning of the tech tree and contracts, builds itself up to near-climax at the end of the tech tree, and finally comes to conclusion well after the player has unlocked the final part. This would actually tie the science and contracts together, push the player further and further out into the system regardless of how fast they unlock parts, and give the player the satisfaction of an actual end-game goal that simply doesn't yet exist.

I've had similar ideas on this, after watching Scott Manley's Interstellar Quest episodes.

I thought it'd be cool to not have a story per-se, but to have clues and hints in the biome experiments that, if you interpret them correctly, lead you to the anomalies. I'm not 100% sure how to do it, but essentially I think you could - say in the crater with the Armstrong Monument...

...a surface sample suggests the rock you get originated in the southern rim of the crater. An eva report from space over it suggests that three craters in a semi-vertical line look particularly interesting. A gravioi scan says you detect an oddity just to the West of those 3 craters.

Not a great idea, I'll admit, but it'd make reading those reports fun and slowly lead you to finding fun little things.

[Guest]

I thought it'd be cool to not have a story per-se, but to have clues and hints in the biome experiments that, if you interpret them correctly, lead you to the anomalies. I'm not 100% sure how to do it, but essentially I think you could - say in the crater with the Armstrong Monument...

This is a much better idea than a story that the player follows through career, especially if you add a few more of them while also adding a little reward after finding an anomaly (extra moneys, science, or rep).

I don't like the idea of a story arc for this game, mainly because I feel like every save I make (even sandbox) is a new story of progression. Having that taken out of the player's hands would pretty much ruin replayability and cheapen the experience. Plus, it would ruin career mode for mods like RSS and even installing something like FAR would potentially require modder adjustments to the story arc to fit the new physics.