Spoilers for .26!

[r_rolo1]

Yeah, definitely add something to get to anomalies. Heck, add mini-biomes to them if needed :/

BTW,on a tangent, Maxmaps today on KSP-TV said ( somewhat jokingly, so take with a grain of salt ) that they will add eventually a game over screen to be displayed when the player goes to negative rep ( and is fired ) ... I assume that he was talking somewhat seriously because he also advised the host to avoid starting a 0.25 game with negative rep

[Claw]

I agree. I like the open endedness of this game. Where I get to decide how I want my space program to progress. I think I like the contracts scheme for that reason. If I don't like a series of contracts, I don't have to take it. I don't know if a similar sequence of contracts would be included for new biomes, but if they were procedurally driven then the potential is much more open.

Also, realize that difficulty settings are on the way. So you'll have even more control over how you want to challenge yourself. If there's too much science for your taste, you can scale it down. Now there's no need to "hold yourself back" as a means to keep it from being "too easy." That's the beauty of an open ended game.

Personally I also think it makes much more sense at this point to make things "a little too easy to get" rather than error on the side of making it too hard. I think it's bad to have a situation where "most people can't do XXX because it's too hard." All that being said, gaming balance is definitely an important aspect. But on top of that, it's also hard to spend a lot of time to make it a good balance for the mass player when things get all jumbled with each update anyway.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Sandworm]

Also, realize that difficulty settings are on the way. So you'll have even more control over how you want to challenge yourself. If there's too much science for your taste, you can scale it down. Now there's no need to "hold yourself back" as a means to keep it from being "too easy." That's the beauty of an open ended game.

Yes, but those difficulty settings will not actually affect gameplay. They will only limit, bookend things. The difficulty scalers will only adjust rewards, be them science or cash. That doesn't make the game any more difficult. All it does is make the game more or less of a grind to save cash or eek out that last drop of science from the rarely visited "badlands" biome.

A proper difficulty setting would effect game mechanics. For instance: A scalable sized kerbin (not hard to implement) would work, or part/system failures rate. Loosing your radar altitude on decent to mun is far more realistic challenge. I want to see difficulties, problems, that can only be solved through skill rather than grinding.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Sandworm

[tater]

Yes, but those difficulty settings will not actually affect gameplay. They will only limit, bookend things. The difficulty scalers will only adjust rewards, be them science or cash. That doesn't make the game any more difficult. All it does is make the game more or less of a grind to save cash or eek out that last drop of science from the rarely visited "badlands" biome.

A proper difficulty setting would effect game mechanics. For instance: A scalable sized kerbin (not hard to implement) would work, or part/system failures rate. Loosing your radar altitude on decent to mun is far more realistic challenge. I want to see difficulties, problems, that can only be solved through skill rather than grinding.

Yeah, I think "difficulty" and challenge are the most often misunderstood things in gaming. There are those (who are utterly wrong) who think that "realism" = difficulty/challenge. There are those that think that awards on contracts might adjust difficulty… they really don't. I'm not even looking for difficulty, I want each campaign to be novel, and chance is very much part of that.

A great example from another game, Silent Hunter 4. The campaign game (stock) was abysmal. Not "meh," abysmal, worthless, you get the idea. I made a new campaign that was supposed to be realistic within the engine limits, but not perfectly historical. Another modder (we collaborated on both mods, he helped a lot with mine, I helped add some units to his, etc) did a historical mod. If there was a japanese task force 200 nm NW of Guam on April 2d, 1943, you can go there in his campaign, and there they are. This is very cool, but it also means that if you do another campaign and happen to be in that area at the same date, it will be identical. My take was to have the right balance of units, and have them going from a sensible place to another sensible place, but it was random. Other than major naval engagements, I didn't script historical movements. Realistic feel, but not perfectly historical. That's an ideal KSP campaign model for me. What could be done?

Here's an idea for a sort of non-multiplayer multiplayer:

A campaign can be set to "borrow" from other players (there would have to be a check for mod compatibility, else it only works with stock). We already get stranded kerbal missions, but where do they come from? This is where they come from. Add another spaceport someplace, and that is the competition's launch facility. Every so often (random) your game sill borrow craft files from other players, and add them to the competition's hanger of stuff. If there was a way to record a mission (like tracks in some games (Il-2, for example)), the track of a launch can be downloaded to your game. Some make it to orbit, some fail, some guys get stranded (maybe in their spacecraft, or even nearby one (EVA gone wrong)). You might find a station that you do not own up there. How/if you can interact with it might be part of the campaign ("New international space treaty signed, contract to take astronauts to Kerbinov Station now available."). It provides as context for rescues. Then there is competition. Another player orbits the Mun. You might get a contract that pays out if you beat them to a landing, but less (or nothing) for a 2d place. This is obviously complex, but it is a way of populating people's games with stuff they didn't make, and a sense of competition that might make replay more interesting.

[Claw]

A proper difficulty setting would effect game mechanics. For instance: A scalable sized kerbin (not hard to implement) would work, or part/system failures rate. Loosing your radar altitude on decent to mun is far more realistic challenge. I want to see difficulties, problems, that can only be solved through skill rather than grinding.

True, by my response is aimed at "there's all ready too much low hanging science, we don't need more biomes" type of comments. If there's too much science or cash available, you can scale it. That's what I'm saying, not a universal "fix all."

What you propose are also good ideas (failure modes). As is adding things like procedural planets. Personally I don't think simply scaling the planets changes the challenge any differently than scaling science, other than forcing people to build bigger rockets. (So now I have to grind longer on the planet to unlock bigger parts to get to orbit.) Yes, it definitely is a challenge to build bigger rockets, but I could say it falls in the same vein of "making it harder by adding some grindy-ness." An alternate view of limiting science means you'll have less technology to explore those harder to reach places.

Creating challenge in this game is a difficult task, to ensure it fits in the openness while providing the same "do what I want" feel. Also, a particular change in difficult isn't going to necessarily be welcomed by all. There are a lot of really good ideas out there and unfortunately there isn't a magic bullet that will make everyone happy.

More biomes isn't high up on my personal list, but I'm still excited to see how they come about. We might see more missions like the long term Laythe project. I'm also hopeful there might be some sort of scansat or ISA type satellite to scan the planets and locate biomes with.

Cheers,

~Claw

EDIT:

I'm not even looking for difficulty, I want each campaign to be novel, and chance is very much part of that.

Yeah, this too. I would also prefer this myself. That's why I more like the idea of procedurally generated (randomish) things. I prefer things to explore, build, and look for rather than "make it hard!" But again, that's what I would want but it might not suit everyone.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Claw

[tater]

The key is a reason (a story, in other words) to do something. A contract starts being a click fest. Don;t like mission X, delete and get another. It;s functionally no different than sandbox.

[Guest]

The key is a reason (a story, in other words) to do something. A contract starts being a click fest. Don;t like mission X, delete and get another. It;s functionally no different than sandbox.

Why do you need a reason to do things? That's the great thing about KSP, it's all about the player's goals, aspirations, and stories. Figure out some things to do, there are so many places to go and things to do in this game that even I don't feel like I've scratched the surface. Anything the game adds is just artificial.

[tater]

Why do you need a reason to do things? That's the great thing about KSP, it's all about the player's goals, aspirations, and stories. Figure out some things to do, there are so many places to go and things to do in this game that even I don't feel like I've scratched the surface. Anything the game adds is just artificial.

If you don;t want a reason, do sandbox. The lack of a reason is the lack of a campaign.

[Guest]

If you don;t want a reason, do sandbox. The lack of a reason is the lack of a campaign.

Why wouldn't I want a reason? I make my own reasons. KSP is about you running the Kerbal's space program. You have to set the goals and meet them. Even contracts are structured this way. You can play an entire career game without leaving Kerbin SOI if you want, which I think is fantastic. You will (hopefully) soon be able to pick another planet in the system and focus entirely on it for your space program. With science in such abundance you will (hopefully) soon be able to run a completely automated space program (sans a few early flights, but what are those between friends?) There are so many options for how to run your game that the replayability is pretty much endless. That is what makes KSP so wonderful.

[Claw]

While I agree with the open endedness, I also appreciate that some people need "motivation" to get out there and do stuff.

That's part of why I like the idea of more biomes (as one example). Some people don't leave the Kerbin system because they WANT to build a ship that can hop around. Not for the sake of science, but for the fun and challenge of building a mission capable of hopping around or exploring a lot of areas. Without the "need" to biome hop on other places, there isn't really a need to leave the system. Nor a real need to drag a science lab along, etc. etc. For a person with an open sense of goal building, they don't need this "motivation," but for others it can make the game feel more expansive. Is it going to be a perfect addition for everyone? No. But it also doesn't cause any limits on those who "don't care."

There are lots of reasons to have lots of different elements in this game. Personally I hope they continue on the track of a progression based "choose your own adventure" style of game play. Something like procedural planets or a scalable solar system would fit right in with that. At least for the moment in development, I like the idea of more biomes for what it adds and it can become. It continues to open up more game without closing off other parts.

~Claw

[Godot]

While I agree with the open endedness, I also appreciate that some people need "motivation" to get out there and do stuff.

That's part of why I like the idea of more biomes (as one example). Some people don't leave the Kerbin system because they WANT to build a ship that can hop around. Not for the sake of science, but for the fun and challenge of building a mission capable of hopping around or exploring a lot of areas. Without the "need" to biome hop on other places, there isn't really a need to leave the system. Nor a real need to drag a science lab along, etc. etc. For a person with an open sense of goal building, they don't need this "motivation," but for others it can make the game feel more expansive. Is it going to be a perfect addition for everyone? No. But it also doesn't cause any limits on those who "don't care."

There are lots of reasons to have lots of different elements in this game. Personally I hope they continue on the track of a progression based "choose your own adventure" style of game play. Something like procedural planets or a scalable solar system would fit right in with that. At least for the moment in development, I like the idea of more biomes for what it adds and it can become. It continues to open up more game without closing off other parts.

~Claw

I absolutely agree with this.

While, yes, you can set your own goal, for example for the exploration of Duna, just by saying "I want to explore landmark xyz", even though it doesn´t net me science points (as Duna ist just one big Biome), the motivation is totally diferent, if you actually get rewarded for the exploration of different structures on other planets (by science points and entries into the science history).

[Guest]

I think a nice compromise would be contract "campaigns", a series of contracts that are all tied to a common theme and can share a story thread. One might start out with rescuing a Kerbal who's employer, interested in your skill, contracts you for a bunch of other missions revolving around concept-proofing the parts comprising whatever the original Kerbal was flying. They could span any number of contracts and give you a big bonus on completion. There could be a few specifically written that show up for every game and the rest would be procedurally generated.

The nice thing about this is a) they're completely optional, retaining the sandbox flavor of the game, they satisfy a desire some people have for a little more direction and coherence in the game that they may not be willing to provide themselves, and c) they fit in nicely with the contract system we already have.

E: Combine that with anomaly hints and rewards and you get a lot of neat little things to craft your own career story from without railroading people around.

[LethalDose]

I think a nice compromise would be contract "campaigns", a series of contracts that are all tied to a common theme and can share a story thread.

This is a good idea. Honestly, I'd just be happy if they replaced the "science from low orbit" with more specific requirements like "temperature from Kerbin's Deserts" or "gravity scan above Mun's twin craters".

[tater]

Why wouldn't I want a reason? I make my own reasons. KSP is about you running the Kerbal's space program. You have to set the goals and meet them. Even contracts are structured this way. You can play an entire career game without leaving Kerbin SOI if you want, which I think is fantastic. You will (hopefully) soon be able to pick another planet in the system and focus entirely on it for your space program. With science in such abundance you will (hopefully) soon be able to run a completely automated space program (sans a few early flights, but what are those between friends?) There are so many options for how to run your game that the replayability is pretty much endless. That is what makes KSP so wonderful.

If I am setting all the goals and reasons, I might as well do sandbox where I… set all the goals and reasons. Any campaign that doesn't constrain you is not a campaign. The current campaign has exactly zero replayability, IMHO. None, it's not even inspiring the first time. I tried stock, then modded (though not a modded campaign). I can do sandbox, and constrain myself to missions I think make sense (Kerbin SOI, probes then manned farther, whatever) and have exactly zero difference with gameplay than the extant campaign has (sans clickfest tech tree glop). It has nothing to recommend it at the moment. Having reasons is NOT limiting, anymore than having an atmosphere is too difficult for new players (or having Isp math correct, for that matter).

The current limitations make exactly zero sense for a while, then make no difference as you blow through the tech tree over a few beers worth of clickfest. No ladders, no solar panels… yeah, that limits you, and for little reason since you get the science to unlock some of them them in your first flights on replay (in my modded campaign, I built an orbiter first thing (happily it worked as I was new to FAR/DRE/etc)). I combined a few testing missions (landed, then on orbit in for things I as gonna use anyway). Unlocked a ton. Very soon I had everything I really needed, but since I wanted to try probes, I pushed some more for solar, and science instruments (because even if useless from a gameplay standpoint, I want landers to carry as much instrumentation as possible). I mean "useless," too. I'm not talking about FUN, I'm talking about gameplay. I'd have exactly the same fun, and would make the same design choices in sandbox. If I make a Jool probe, it's gonna have an impact probe, an orbiter, etc, regardless of play mode. In "career" it's pointless. You either get all the tech ahead of time to get the science instruments, so any science gained from Jool does nothing from the career standpoint, or by the time the craft arrives (sent with minimal instruments earlier), you've finished the tree anyway.

Unlocking the tree should NOT be the goal, but since it is in fact the only thing the game keeps track of, it is the default goal. Maybe if the value of everything was massively decreased "reputation" might matter, but unless they rescaled everything, a lot, the new career stuff is just lipstick...

Take your last point:

There are so many options for how to run your game that the replayability is pretty much endless. That is what makes KSP so wonderful.

Those options within career differ from sandbox by exactly nothing at all. I give KSP overall a very high rating (even in it's WIP state!), but the career in 0.24.2 I give maybe a 2 out of 10. Maybe. The new stuff could increase that, but only if it profoundly rebalances the contracts, science, etc. It is too easy, it makes no sense, either (ladders are a mid tier item? Really?). The only reward structure is tech. The only reason to do anything is science (for tech purchase), but that reason firstly makes little sense (linking planetary science to tech makes zero sense from a common sense standpoint---the most science is from sample returns, and geology has about about zero impact on spaceflight engineering). Secondly, science is so easy that it ceases to be a gameplay issue after not many missions. Again, gameplay as defined by what the game engine rewards, nothing else matters since personal choices for fun are just "sandbox."

I want a career mode to push me to do things that I might not want to do, and to have incentives to do things that I do want to do. And not dumb things like be in some ridiculous altitude range going 500 m/s so I can test something and have the test fail even though all green checks are there, which made me stop doing anything but landed and orbital tests (and only stuff that made sense to test at that point in an otherwise real mission).

Sorry for the long rant, but when the career is infinitely open it becomes identical to sandbox---and we have sandbox as well.

Edited October 4, 2014 by tater

[Claw]

This is a good idea. Honestly, I'd just be happy if they replaced the "science from low orbit" with more specific requirements like "temperature from Kerbin's Deserts" or "gravity scan above Mun's twin craters".

That makes sense and hopefully it'll move that way now that the structure of contracts is in place. This would also create a lot more very specific contracts with the new biomes. Then maybe there could be a mix. "Recover or transmit a gravity scan from the surface of Duna's lowlands." Now you have an extremely specific science goal and location. With maybe the inclusion of other, more generic contracts such as "Recover or transmit science from Duna."

Now you can pick which you would rather do. I think having just the specific example would limit the amount of science farming that can be done. However, if both types of contracts are available, people can still chose. Maybe that could even be tied to difficulty setting somehow.

~Claw

Edited October 4, 2014 by Claw

[tater]

Really specific contract that are sensible would be a huge improvement, to be sure. As long as they are sensible. Science from munar polar regions, for example, just not "land upside down in biome X." Honestly, something where we orbit and scan so that we know where the interesting places are would be a huge plus. Still, the reason for most biome science might very well be looking for water… but that only matters if we have resources (something that would be awesome for an endgame, IMHO).

[Yoda Soda]

The new biomes gonna be awesome... but it isn't enough.

I want something that force you to go to the same planet/moon again. I was thinking about the price for the experiment part, they should be way higher so you can't spam them on every ship. And the contract give you the opportunity to study them by reducing the price for one or more experiment part (like the contractor want the temperature analysis on the mun midland, so they give you money and help you by giving you a cheap thermometer. In return, you receive a lot of money and a higher science output from that analysis). Contract mission give you opportunities to do science without spamming every biomes possible (since you can't really afford it). There should be at least one science mission for most planet or moon and then you could fuel your space program by taking contracts to the planet you really want. After, these contracts could develop in more complex mission, like roving multiple biome, a base/station with kerbal, special encounter/anomaly etc. to continue exploring the planet without to grind it in a clickfest (these contracts give you a lot of science). This is my 2 cents on how i see it...

I have also thought about a way we could burn the money/science by giving parts different tier. Use your science point to unlock an iteration of an engine (with a better trust and isp). This iteration would cost more than the regular part, but more effective. You could always revert it to the cheaper version if you want a cheap launch or you are getting poor. This is my 2 cents again.

I really like the idea of SkyRex94 with his procedural exploration.

The problem is not there are too much science available but... this is too easy to take all the science from a planet in one trip. We should have a way to go deep in exploration of a particular body or just skim every planet by using contracts. And keeping the sandboxy thing. I was an Eve online player. In this game, you could skim all skill to be versatile, or just go deep in one category like industrial skill.

[Guest]

Sorry for the long rant, but when the career is infinitely open it becomes identical to sandbox---and we have sandbox as well.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I completely disagree with you, most especially on this point. To me, having a bunch of required things that I have to do turns a wonderfully creative sandboxey simulator into an exercise in performing rote tasks, which completely kills any replayability because you end up doing the same thing every time you spin up a save game. I think career mode is quite good as it is and, aside from maybe a restructuring of the tech tree and some additional contracts types, plus the additional features on their way, it doesn't really need much of anything. You have direction if you need it and freedom if you want it, and some limitations you'll be able to tailor to the level of "grind" you want on the way; it's the best of all worlds.

[tater]

I get what you are saying about the "sandbox simulator" completely. My point is that when we explicitly have sandbox mode, as well as the "science" career, what is different about "career" mode right now, or without profound changes? It's sandbox with a a slight delay in having parts in the first X hours of play, that's it. The only meaningful missions are the rescues (all exactly the same, snooze), and the get science/plant flag on/around different bodies. Those are always there, too, so other than reminding you to visit Ike or whatever, noting interesting that you'd not see in sandbox, if you wanna go, you will go.

Within the entirely "meh" extant system, they could at least improve science and missions:

Massively lower science gained for most missions, and default to closer to 1:1 on return vs transmitted science.

Contracts, since they also dose science points can make SPECIFIC missions have much higher values for things like sample returns (closer to stock). So randomly landing and getting science is OK, a few point here, a few there. If you get a contract for a specific place, then a lot more.

Spaceflight science specific contracts. Ie: Manned orbital mission for X days, then a later one for XX days, etc. Some for KEO, others might be outside the kerbin SOI, on the Mun, whatever.

They need alternate rescues (guy on the Mun with a broken ship, for example. Some might ask to recover a spacecraft to KEO or something).

More specific requirements for the extant planetary missions: "get science from this altitude orbit over polar regions" or "collect surface samples from deep munar canyon" (see above regarding contracts).

Also, dump repeating missions. If I decline testing a parachute at 18,000m going at 400-500m/s while pointed north during which Jeb must also eat a Twinkie, I never want to see that mission again, instead of seeing it pop up, well, immediately. Once I've tested a given SRB on a test stand at KSC, I don't need to get that again. Specific (and varied) get science from around X missions would make them recurring (and the science gained can be zero (i.e.: a a blank communication)) seem less lame. Maybe I even need to change orbital plane or something.

I'm honestly surprised anyone likes the current system, it's failings was my very first post here.

[LethalDose]

That makes sense and hopefully it'll move that way now that the structure of contracts is in place. This would also create a lot more very specific contracts with the new biomes. Then maybe there could be a mix. "Recover or transmit a gravity scan from the surface of Duna's lowlands." Now you have an extremely specific science goal and location. With maybe the inclusion of other, more generic contracts such as "Recover or transmit science from Duna."

Now you can pick which you would rather do. I think having just the specific example would limit the amount of science farming that can be done. However, if both types of contracts are available, people can still chose. Maybe that could even be tied to difficulty setting somehow.

~Claw

I can see having both in the game. The more specific the request for science is, the higher the reward multiplier should be for the contract. It doesn't need to be tied to difficulty to a difficulty setting, and players can still choose which they take.

[Wanderfound]

I'm honestly surprised anyone likes the current system, it's failings was my very first post here.

I don't think many people do like the current contracts that much. But it's recognised that they're just a placeholder for a more fleshed-out system to come, and people obviously have different preferences on how much flesh they'd like there to be.

As with most things, it'd probably be best if the sandboxyness vs plottiness of the game was user-tweakable. Keeping the contracts both diverse and optional goes a long way to achieving that. Keeping easy mod access to the contracts will as well. I can see a thriving supply of custom modpacks featuring contract-connected plotlines. KSP as an interactive storytelling tool.

[DMagic]

That makes sense and hopefully it'll move that way now that the structure of contracts is in place. This would also create a lot more very specific contracts with the new biomes. Then maybe there could be a mix. "Recover or transmit a gravity scan from the surface of Duna's lowlands." Now you have an extremely specific science goal and location. With maybe the inclusion of other, more generic contracts such as "Recover or transmit science from Duna."

Now you can pick which you would rather do. I think having just the specific example would limit the amount of science farming that can be done. However, if both types of contracts are available, people can still chose. Maybe that could even be tied to difficulty setting somehow.

~Claw

I like my own solution to this (natch ); I gave up my contracts that request only one specific result and combined them with planetary survey contracts of some sort. These can be requests for a number of results from orbit that are not dependent on biomes (because I find locating a specific biome from orbit to be extremely tedious, even with Science Alert and/or SCANsat), or returning a number of results from one specific biome on the surface (because visiting multiple biomes on the surface can be a tall order).

This opens up the possibility of more targeted types of surveys, with requests for related science experiments, or more scatter-shot contracts, with random science requests, or grand-tour types of contracts (of which there is a type already included in stock, but not, it would seem, activated), with requests for multiple results from multiple planets.

Having contracts for one specific experimental result doesn't seem very effective to me. You might end up having to create a mission just to get one result (obviously you can get more, it's not quite the same as part test contracts) to prevent letting a contract expire. Or you might spend forever tediously declining contracts until you have multiple offers for the same target to make a mission worthwhile.

[boxman]

This is a good idea. Honestly, I'd just be happy if they replaced the "science from low orbit" with more specific requirements like "temperature from Kerbin's Deserts" or "gravity scan above Mun's twin craters".

I agree as well...

[Guest]

Massively lower science gained for most missions, and default to closer to 1:1 on return vs transmitted science.

You'll be able to lower the gain in 0.25 to your heart's content, and I think the transmission values should remain because they reward more difficult missions.

Contracts, since they also dose science points can make SPECIFIC missions have much higher values for things like sample returns (closer to stock). So randomly landing and getting science is OK, a few point here, a few there. If you get a contract for a specific place, then a lot more.

I don't like that because it tends to force contracts on players and, besides, contracts don't exactly offer anything more in terms of difficulty so I don't see why the reward should be higher.

Spaceflight science specific contracts. Ie: Manned orbital mission for X days, then a later one for XX days, etc. Some for KEO, others might be outside the kerbin SOI, on the Mun, whatever.

More varied and specific contracts would be great, I'm sure they're on the way.

They need alternate rescues (guy on the Mun with a broken ship, for example. Some might ask to recover a spacecraft to KEO or something).

See above, that would be great.

More specific requirements for the extant planetary missions: "get science from this altitude orbit over polar regions" or "collect surface samples from deep munar canyon" (see above regarding contracts).

I agree, but I also like the idea of the generic "explore this place missions." The ones you have here would be cool after that one was complete, much like how the flag planting missions that show up.

Also, dump repeating missions. If I decline testing a parachute at 18,000m going at 400-500m/s while pointed north during which Jeb must also eat a Twinkie, I never want to see that mission again, instead of seeing it pop up, well, immediately. Once I've tested a given SRB on a test stand at KSC, I don't need to get that again. Specific (and varied) get science from around X missions would make them recurring (and the science gained can be zero (i.e.: a a blank communication)) seem less lame. Maybe I even need to change orbital plane or something.

Again, see above, more varied contracts are probably on the way. You should make a suggestion regarding the repeating missions, BTW. This is where SQUAD's development model fails because the system is half-finished.

I'm honestly surprised anyone likes the current system, it's failings was my very first post here.

I really like it, probably because I see some great potential in the system and I'm already used to SQUAD leaving a feature half-written while they move on to something else. I seriously hope they get around to a polish pass soon because literally all the natives are restless.

[Tw1]

Sorry for the long rant, but when the career is infinitely open it becomes identical to sandbox---and we have sandbox as well.

Not quite so- in career, you have the constraint of budget. It is 'career' not campaign mode.

In career, you can't just do anything, there are costs, consequences, etc.

I am one who hopes life-support comes one day. I'd prefer career's difference from sand box to mainly be about having to manage realistic constraints to achieve things, rather than there being a set of things to tick off.

That has always been one of the charms of KSP to me. Success or failure governed by physical rules, not arbitrary conditions being met. Career could me mostly like that, but with economic rules, as well as physical ones.

I also like regex's idea of campaignish contracts. If they are done as described, it could be better than the existing ones, but not overpower the players own imagination.

Though I prefer specific ones than the general "Explore this" ones. One small visit doesn't count as having explored something in my book, plus the more specific ones will have you going there anyway. And for a reason, like collecting data.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Tw1