Anyone else want to like career mode but just can't?

[Flymetothemun]

When I first started playing KSP (circa 0.18/0.19) I had a spreadsheet for managing my own kind of career mode. I tracked my Kerbonauts, their missions, achievements and flight time. I had a table of "scientific data" I'd discovered with the four basic instruments available at various altitudes and positions on Kerbin, Mun and Minmus. I'd done a number of missions such as launching my own "Stayputnik", docking with a practice target, launching communication satellites, mapping satellites, tested my Munar lander in LKO (after watching "Spider" in "From the Earth to the Moon" admittedly ) and spent countless hours crafting and testing a Munar rover that could fit in the 1.25m KW fairing, before landing it on the Mun itself and driving several KMs to scout a potential landing site. I played the game like a career and approached the game kind of like NASA would - test it, investigate it and then do.

So since the first part of career came out, I've stubbornly stuck with career mode. From the wonky tree where probes and landing gear are horribly placed and the click-fest science grind, to the "test some random part at some impossible position" gobbledygook contracts and the budget constraints that basically sink a space program after two or three failures. I've tinkered with the custom career settings over and over trying to find a balance to make it challenging enough to be fun and yet not be a horrible grind. And I've still yet to land on anything past the Mun! Every release I've started a new career, tried to enjoy it and then get bored just before or after I land on the Mun.

With the release of 0.25, I spent some time finding a bunch of mods to start my career over ("it'll be fixed this time", I told myself, "these mods will add more fun!") yet I'm three missions in, already being told to go to the Mun, low on funds, still without landing gear and already bored.

Overall I think what I'm missing in career mode is the sense of accomplishment and fulfilment in doing things (even simple things like lander tests). The tech tree limits the parts in a really arbitrary way (although I have made some wacky rockets as a result) and science is just plain dull to collect. The contracts that should fix it by adding another dimension just turn the game into this huge rush out of Kerbin SOI, and the funds stop you from doing even the little things like testing parts because they'll just be a waste. And to top it off, powered flight increasingly seems like a mid to late game technology and probes/rovers are pretty much relegated to uselessness (seems odd given that they've done far more space exploration than their fleshy counterparts).

I'm sorely tempted to go back to sandbox and a spreadsheet, but I'm also wary as to how much "real" science I can do now that so many mods are geared towards the career mode. Not to mention the time spent tracking everything manually.

Anyone one else had the same problem with the career mode? Any recommendations on what I could try to give the career one more chance? Or is it time to admit defeat and ditch it for sandbox mode?

I don't like career mode either, but I'm REALLY interested in this spreadsheet.

[panzer1b]

When you're already highly experienced with KSP and you've played Career for two times, you get tired of it and just want to build stuff in sandbox. It's normal.

i say this is very true for me. Im used to SSTO design, and when i make rockets, they are primarily lifters for capital ships or ground bases to be moved somewhere. Part limits also kills the ability to make aesthetic designs (which is tend to prefer over 100% efficiency), so yeah, not really my thing atm.

One thing that really ticks me off is a few parts i deem essential to building any half decent craft, being stuck all the way at the end of the tech tree. I like the missions, and the contracts, but im not a fan of how so many (in my opinion) essential parts for sustainable good rockets are all the way at the end of the game, and without abusing the overpowered money/rep->science from the admin building (which is broken as it means half teh tree unlocked for a single mission to the mun ect), it takes bloody forever to obtain those few essential parts id consider very useful for rockets (looking at RTGs as #1, one of last parts you get, as i hate solars for their inability to do jack at night). Id love funds/rep to play more of a role in the game (ive never had money issues sofar, and ive also not found much use for REP), and id also love to see the random part testing be more normalized (sometimes you get some random easy thing, worth 20 times more then an equivalent, it turns into deny contracts until one thats worth something pops up), make the parts scale credits less randomly and make harder missions be worth much more. i like the progression of tech being opened later, but some things are rather tempting to just modify the .part files and unlock them earlier (electric stuff mostly, while you CAN play the game without em all, its a tedious pain in the arse without having at the bare minimum solars). The early game is way too grindy imo, and late game becomes rather easy. Right now, only way i myself can enjoy the game is to max the starting science, and bum rush up the electricity line to get at a bare minimum the ability to charge the batteries that seem to always die way to quickly.

Anyways, aside from my forced requirement for electricity generation (and preference of RTGs), the career game is rather nice. Perhaps at least consider making the 1st solar unlocked at the start, bloody hate running out of power mid flight.

best thing id love to have is missions in sandbox mode (optional missions that is, go into mission control, and pick something from there you like), thisd allow me to actually go after an objective with whatever design/tactic i feel like using, and ofc no limits with money (rep can be in this mode).

Edited December 10, 2014 by panzer1b

[klgraham1013]

I still like the idea of financial restrictions, so I play sandbox with a financial spreadsheet. I get an annual income divided into periodic payments. An argument against this has always been time warp. Add TAC-LS and suddenly it adds a new dimension to play. Having to plan resupply missions and how large, expensive missions effect future resupplies. I had to collect half a years payments for a single mission. This had huge implications for how I planned the years missions.

Anyway. That's how I've been playing "career".

Edited December 11, 2014 by klgraham1013

[Docsprock]

I got hooked on KSP by playing the 'old' career mode with science only. The 'new' career mode is just not my style. I prefer sandbox to design rovers, aircraft and orbiters.

[White Owl]

Or is it time to admit defeat and ditch it for sandbox mode?

I ditched it for sandbox mode, and never regretted the decision. House ruling your own goals and limitations is the way to go.

[Sandworm]

Also, if players are having trouble with funding, why not just play on an easier mode with more funding? I mean, SQUAD did add those difficulty sliders for a reason...

Because the contract reward algorithm is nonsensical. The multipliers for different locations do not correspond logically to the increased equipment need. So you either have way way too much money, to the point that it is meaningless, or are stuck doing repetitive contracts just to bank enough to complete an under-rewarded contract to a fun destination. Balance is impossible as both situations will be experienced eventually no matter where you put the slider.

Because the rewards system is locked to individual missions. In every other "tycoon" game I've played there was a means of establishing a steady flow of income, of building a business that you didn't need to micromanage. Even playing minecraft, definitely not a tycoon game, there is a point at which early-game annoyances go away. You starve the first couple days but eventually you get a farm going and move on. Not in KSP. There is no progression from small to big picture management.

Because contrary to Squad's assertions, I can find so way to convert the various currencies. One can alter the ratios of how they are dolled out, but if you are 0.5 science short of getting the part you need I can see no way to throw money at the problem. There is also no "loan" scheme, a cornerstone of any real tycoon game. And there is no means of inventing an income from anything other than completing contracts. There is no room for economic creativity. Such abilities would certainly soften the rough edges of career mode.

[Wanderfound]

I ditched it for sandbox mode, and never regretted the decision. House ruling your own goals and limitations is the way to go.

Meh; I have a Sandbox save for challenges and prototyping, a Career save for building a space program, a low-mod save for when I get annoyed with computer crashes, an RSS save for when I start to think it's all too easy, etc.

Each to their own, there is no one true way.

[Xavven]

One thing that really ticks me off is a few parts i deem essential to building any half decent craft, being stuck all the way at the end of the tech tree. I like the missions, and the contracts, but im not a fan of how so many (in my opinion) essential parts for sustainable good rockets are all the way at the end of the game, and without abusing the overpowered money/rep->science from the admin building (which is broken as it means half teh tree unlocked for a single mission to the mun ect), it takes bloody forever to obtain those few essential parts id consider very useful for rockets ...

I find myself in the same boat so often! It's like, yeah, I know I can easily land on Mun with a Mk-1 command pod, no landing gear, and no ladders, but it just doesn't feel "right" that

1. my engine bell nozzle is still intact and functional after colliding with the surface at 3 m/s bearing the whole weight of the ship;
   
2. Jebediah lands while sitting in a chair oriented in a completely non-intuitive direction for landing, with only one tiny window pointed towards the sky so he can neither actually see where he's going nor the landing site;
   
3. he has to jetpack to and from the hatch and Munar surface.
   

There are also occasions where it looks better if I put my RCS ports on a cubic octagonal strut so that the exhaust clears the ship. It looks dumb when the nozzle is pointing at another part and yet the game doesn't account for it, though it does account for non-RCS main engines.

[SubzeroSpartan7]

This is an alpha (soon to be beta, however the amount of features coming in the next update might just change my overall thought that stock career is boring) game. It isn't finished and you're just going to have to deal with it for a while. And just play sandbox. Don't worry about career until it fits your expectations. I pretty much gave up on career until the recent additions of strategies. And I still find it highly annoying, only playable with Fine Print (which is why it is being added to stock). So just do what you think is the best.

[klgraham1013]

This is an alpha (soon to be beta, however the amount of features coming in the next update might just change my overall thought that stock career is boring) game.

Except it is the fundamental ground work I have a problem with. That will most likely not change in beta.

edit: I take that back. I can think of ways to modify the current system to my liking.

[RuBisCO]

I like it, it just outside of stock many mods do not utilize it well and it become useless with those mods.

[Francois424]

Carreer is not missing much for me. Let's see what I installed as mods:

- Engineer (for the basics: Dv/stage, orbit max/min, atmo efficiency, fuel time left etc...)

- RT2 (ONLY for the flight computer, which will be stock next patch, assuming I have a pilot)

- Volumetric Clouds and Visual enhancements (just for more beautiful game)

- Many mods for parts (extra solar panels, more powerful nukes/Ions w/same ISP, electric propeller that can both push/pull with the flick of a switch, 5k Xenon Tanks, Comm Dishes, more lights, M27 cockpit(b9).

- when science is involved, science alert/science containers(to auto-put the science where I want it... ie: in the mobile lab)

That might seem a lot, but most are parts which I feel are lacking in stock. Remove those, and not much is missing. Sure the tech tree needs rework (a good idea was made in the suggestion forum for a "Star-shaped tree" which would fix many problems everyone complains about.

I don't mind (in fact I love) the science part, the better missions imho are Explore "X", the rest is meh, but we also are getting fineprints next patch, so another issue 'solved'. Lots of room for late game development if you don't rush everywhere with a tier1-2 rocket, took ma ages to explore Dres and Eeloo, and haven't landed on some places yet.

Career is a really nice game mode... it just need better contract, a better tech tree, and more parts (content, which BETA is all about if I got this right). I just hope we see the mods I like stock at somepoint; call me selfish but in a scope complete 1.00 game, that would be nice.

[WuphonsReach]

I think career mode will be the long-term best mode, once it is fleshed out and balanced.

- The tech tree needs love. Things like the first jet engine, wheels, and basic wings / fuselages are scattered.

- Unlocking an engine should give you a rough version that is 5-15% heavier then optimal, has 5-15% less ISP/thrust, and a failure chance of 3-5%. You improve it by tying up a Kerbal and giving them funds and science points. Each progression step should reduce one of the attributes by 50%. So you start with something that is 15% over spec weight, the first iteration gets you something that is 7.5% over, then 3.75% over, then 1.875% over. Each iteration might take 20-30% longer and cost more then the previous iteration.

Now you have to prioritize which attribute of a particular engine you focus on for improvement, with the ability to throw surplus funds / science at it, or run tests on it to speed up the process. Getting the basic LV-T45 from 15% over weight, 15% under thrust and with a 5% failure rate down to something reliable (4 iterations on each of the three attributes) might take 2-3 weeks because it is a really simple engine. And you could run a few test flights to cut the time / cost by 50%. Or throw funds at it to speed it up. Or throw a high-KXP Kerbal at it to improve it.

- Same concept could be applied to other parts in Career mode. Fuel tanks might be overweight to start, or be weaker then spec (easier to break apart). Reaction wheels might be overweight, or underperform.

- The randomized contracts for part testing need to be improved.

- If contracts are a primary gameplay element, then there needs to be a way to tag a particular vessel as "I only want to see contracts X/Y/Z when controlling this ship". Whether that means you tie a vessel to a contract, or tie contracts to vessels, I'm not sure. There also needs to be an easy way to pull up the contract while in mid-flight, especially on "parts testing" flights where you have to hit a specific window.

- A parts inventory along with manufacturing times would be an improvement for Career mode. When you have parts that are being reused from flight to flight due to recovery / refurb, now you can have parts that wear out (can't be refurbed) or which are more prone to breakage unless maintained.

So there's a lot of things they could do in career mode which would make it more interesting and varied from game to game. Moving from 1.25m rockets up to 2m rockets would be a lot riskier because you would not have improved the reliability and performance of those parts yet.

[Sandworm]

- Unlocking an engine should give you a rough version that is 5-15% heavier then optimal, has 5-15% less ISP/thrust, and a failure chance of 3-5%. You improve it by tying up a Kerbal and giving them funds and science points. Each progression step should reduce one of the attributes by 50%. So you start with something that is 15% over spec weight, the first iteration gets you something that is 7.5% over, then 3.75% over, then 1.875% over. Each iteration might take 20-30% longer and cost more then the previous iteration.

Now you have to prioritize which attribute of a particular engine you focus on for improvement, with the ability to throw surplus funds / science at it, or run tests on it to speed up the process. Getting the basic LV-T45 from 15% over weight, 15% under thrust and with a 5% failure rate down to something reliable (4 iterations on each of the three attributes) might take 2-3 weeks because it is a really simple engine. And you could run a few test flights to cut the time / cost by 50%. Or throw funds at it to speed it up. Or throw a high-KXP Kerbal at it to improve it.

- Same concept could be applied to other parts in Career mode. Fuel tanks might be overweight to start, or be weaker then spec (easier to break apart). Reaction wheels might be overweight, or underperform.

I don't think that's in the cards. Squad has had several opportunities to have parts change as the tech tree progresses (ie not adding monopropellant until you can use it) but has stuck with static part definitions. The only reason for this that I can think of is to keep designs performing identically in both sandbox and career mode. But that logic breaks down now that Squad has shown a willingness for RPG elements affect rocket performance.

[kinnison]

My problem with career is that it is nearly impossible to maximize the efficacy of craft until you get "cubic octagonal struts" Not to mention you need batteries and solar panels for unmanned probes. I had some problems with craft losing all power before they even reached minmus. then the stupidity of follow up missions when you get a new science instrument. Then i have found there is no point going outside Kerbins SOI until you get far along the tech to at least the 2nd to last tier. When you can get all your science via Minmus and Mun. By the time a craft reaches another planetary body you are already building stations and figuring out the logistics of refueling SSTO landers

[Francois424]

Well in all due respect, it's the player's own fault if s/he maxxes everything out in Mun/Minmus... Nothing prevents one person of heading to jool asap and try there, or dune/ike, eo w/e. This will be even more plausible in next patch woohoo !

[Xavven]

Well in all due respect, it's the player's own fault if s/he maxxes everything out in Mun/Minmus... Nothing prevents one person of heading to jool asap and try there, or dune/ike, eo w/e. This will be even more plausible in next patch woohoo !

That's true. My first career playthrough I nearly maxxed the tree on Mun. On my second playthrough, I self imposed a 1 Mun and 1 Minmus biome rule, and actually had to send probes out to interplanetary space, Eve, and Duna/Ike to get my most important tech.

[Xavven]

I don't think that's in the cards. Squad has had several opportunities to have parts change as the tech tree progresses (ie not adding monopropellant until you can use it) but has stuck with static part definitions. The only reason for this that I can think of is to keep designs performing identically in both sandbox and career mode. But that logic breaks down now that Squad has shown a willingness for RPG elements affect rocket performance.

Luckily Squad backed down from the "Jeb's magic boots of +10 Isp". My guess is that they'll balance what they have during beta rather than add new features like tank/engine/reactionwheel improvement research, since the latter would require new features to be coded and they're already "feature complete".

[Fourjays]

Wow, wasn't expecting this many replies when I came on this morning!

I would lean towards an alternate tech tree and science mode. Or perhaps KSPI?

I have played about with some alternate tech trees (such as T7), but found some of the mod integration a bit "wonky" at times. I've also had a go with KSPI, but have a tough time deciding between that or the Near Future mods as they don't really seem directly compatible. I might try an alternate tree again in the science-only mode though and see how I go. Although I do wish they'd make science collection a bit more scientific and playable...

Wait a few weeks. Fine Print integration, along with the new building tiers and completed biomes, will radically alter career mode.

My latest attempt with 0.25 was with FinePrint and CustomBiomes. Honestly I never really managed to give FinePrint's contracts much of a go. It gave me one to fly over areas on Kerbin, which was kind of difficult with landing gear buried who knows where though, and not enough funds to make a VTOL with sufficient fuel to reach the locations. It is a good mod though and definitely something that would be a step towards improving the career.

Agreed. For me personally, Career seems illogical, too restrictive and too easy.

This is a nice way of explaining how I feel. I either feel like I'm being rushed into visiting places I'm not yet ready to (due to parts, experience, science, funds, desire, whatever), or that I'm being held back from the things I want to do. As someone else has said, it is like I'm playing Squad's career and not my own.

Also, if players are having trouble with funding, why not just play on an easier mode with more funding? I mean, SQUAD did add those difficulty sliders for a reason...

Think last attempt I went with the default for science, 150% funds, 150% penalties and 50% reputation. Still ended up finding the funds too restrictive for the contracts being offered.

Oh, is time for another one of these threads?

Everyone has a different play-style, and some of those styles aren't compatible with career. Career presents challenges that some people don't think are fun.

But, If you dislike career, don't play it. You have sandbox. SQUAD has made it pretty clear they consider sandbox finished, though, so you have very little room to complain that nothing's changing or they're not working on it.

Sandbox-mode enthusiasts are not some persecuted or neglected portion of the fan-base, as these threads always seem to insinuate.

The game is also in heavy development. We can hope that a lot of science tree issues and balance will get taken care of prior to the final release (though my lack of faith in SQUAD is basically a matter of public record at this point).

I want to play a career mode though? I love tycoon and career based games. My favourite game right now is Euro Truck Simulator 2 and I'm having a blast building up my trucking empire (4 garages and 15 drivers/trucks). This is kind of my point - if I love those kind of games, why does KSP's career mode fall so flat for me? I should love it. It isn't about the challenge per se (I've had some good times building and perfecting some odd designs, like a tri-rocket/Mun lander design to keep the CoM low ), but that playing the career mode isn't feeling like a very rewarding experience compared to similar modes in other games.

I never said anything regards sandbox being neglected. More scientific instruments for doing actual science like the thermometer would be nice though, and could make the science mode more interesting than reading a bunch of increasingly bizarre comments about things being made of ice cream or rocket fuel. The comments are funny at first, but grow old. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd like to actually learn about the planets in the Kerbol system, how it relates to the Kerbal's existence and what it can do to help my space program.

When you're already highly experienced with KSP and you've played Career for two times, you get tired of it and just want to build stuff in sandbox. It's normal.

I wish I could claim to be highly experienced, but I'm not. I've not finished the tech tree (get bored of the science grind before that point) and haven't gone beyond Minmus. I haven't even docked anything since before the tech tree was introduced, because I end up quitting the game before I unlock docking ports. I'm very good at getting to 100km orbit without using manuver nodes though.

I ditched it for sandbox mode, and never regretted the decision. House ruling your own goals and limitations is the way to go.

I might try sandbox over the weekend. I watch Scott Manley's KSP videos as often as he releases them, and read these forums every day so I definitely want to play KSP. It's just the grind and tedium of the career keeps putting me off.

I still like the idea of financial restrictions, so I play sandbox with a financial spreadsheet. I get an annual income divided into periodic payments. An argument against this has always been time warp. Add TAC-LS and suddenly it adds a new dimension to play. Having to plan resupply missions and how large, expensive missions effect future resupplies. I had to collect half a years payments for a single mission. This had huge implications for how I planned the years missions.

I like this idea. Would you mind sharing your spreadsheet so I can get an idea of how you manage this?

I don't like career mode either, but I'm REALLY interested in this spreadsheet.

Should be able to grab it here. This was from the pre-contracts/funds career, hence why there are "do science" remarks on some of the missions. I've had more complicated versions before that listing my lifter capabilities, mission programs (including "commercial" missions such as GPS satellites) and more.

/long post

[Xavven]

I want to play a career mode though? I love tycoon and career based games. My favourite game right now is Euro Truck Simulator 2 and I'm having a blast building up my trucking empire (4 garages and 15 drivers/trucks). This is kind of my point - if I love those kind of games, why does KSP's career mode fall so flat for me? I should love it. It isn't about the challenge per se (I've had some good times building and perfecting some odd designs, like a tri-rocket/Mun lander design to keep the CoM low ), but that playing the career mode isn't feeling like a very rewarding experience compared to similar modes in other games.

Keep in mind you're comparing an unfinished game to a finished one. Let's see what happens in beta.

[boxman]

Wait a few weeks. Fine Print integration, along with the new building tiers and completed biomes, will radically alter career mode.

Fine Print missions have enough diversity that you never need to leave LKO if you don't want to (but will also give you rover/satellite/station missions around any planet you're due to visit). OTOH, all the new biomes provide much more reason to get out there.

If the biomes will be as generic as they are now then it wont make much difference. I want to actually learn something about the kerbal system/biome locations instead of just some generic text about the green goo is behaving.

Would be much more interesting if you could do some science at a crater/biome and learn how it was formed, what kind of materials are there and so on. And maybe even learn more about these same biomes if you send a second mission with improved science tools.

[Tw1]

I agree with the OP. Career is far shallower than what I had hoped for- something that would make me manage aspects of the space program. Logical constraints, cost, part availability, life support, scientific contribution,-ideally a game with he nuance of simcity 4. Something that would expand the experience beyond what imagination can do already do, things to measure, exploration, discovery, setting up things in space because it makes sense to do so.

Instead, we get click to collect the space points, and unlock all the parts. Oh, and tick the contract boxes, but that system has far more potential than the other two are showing.

I could continue to rant, but I wrote this so I didn't have to.(And will be going to sleep instead.)

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/1767-Science-is-pretty-shallow-Could-it-be-shaken-up-a-bit

Edited December 11, 2014 by Tw1

[Greenfire32]

I don't care much for Career mode either and I'm not entirely sure why. I think it has something to do with part restrictions, but again, no real concrete idea as to why I'm not a fan.

I play sandbox primarily and every time I play I set limits for myself. Things like, "Robotic missions before manned missions. Manned missions MUST return Kerbals home with little to no malfunctions," etc etc.

Maybe the part restriction is it? Maybe it's the way you "do the science," or maybe it's the limitation of travel zones due to the part restrictions. I really don't know what puts me off about career mode.

I have the same dislike about the science-only career mode so...I don't know...

[klgraham1013]

"Jeb's magic boots of +10 Isp"

I hate this explanation of what they were trying to do. Rather, level 1 Jeb is a fledgling pilot so he gets -10 efficiency and he turns slower. A max level Jeb would get the max out of an engine.

...but, basically everyone else disagreed.

[klgraham1013]

I like this idea. Would you mind sharing your spreadsheet so I can get an idea of how you manage this?

I basically made a cell for the date, one for the mission description, mission cost, and fund balance. The fund balance cell would subtract the last fund balance with the current mission cost. Rinse and repeat. I use Open Office for my spreadsheet.

You can check it out here.

The Pegasus was my main SSTO. That's why I was able to make so many trips with it. Just pay for the payload and fuel and fly again. This career didn't get to far, but it's a basic example of how I play.

Edited December 11, 2014 by klgraham1013