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

[woodensen]

Yeah, lately im more into sandbox than career. The game have not yet finished though, so we wont know what career will look like later. In the end, it may exceed your expectation and become the ultimate game like minecraft, or becoming a typical indie project that has faithful fanbase just like any other typical indie games on steam.

I dont know, but lately ive been led to believe that SQUAD doesnt care about what the community think how the game is supposed to be. If thats the case, this thread and all the arguments and ideas inside it (and all other threads) would be just in vain.

But thats where mods comes in. We (community) have no right to tell the devs what to do, but the devs has given us pretty modable platform. So, yeah, i wont rely too much on SQUAD. They have already done their part. I rely more on the indigenous folks here.

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

I've only been playing a few months. I'm tending to flip-flop currently. I'll spend a while playing Sandbox then switch to Career, and then a while playing Career and the switch to Sandbox. Occasionally I'll have multiple saves active in both, but as I say, I tend to flip-flop. Sandbox is good when I just want to play around with designs. But sometimes I need (something else to give me) a push in terms of what to build next. And I like coming back to Career after a while away from it and going "Oh, I need to send a mission there? I now have a far better plan for how to achieve that than I did last time I played this" (Although, I'll admit that I'm now using FinePrint since that's now a given for the next update, and that does seem to give a lot better contracts).

I'm also a deleter though - I couldn't tell you how many saves I've started (either Sandpit or Career), but I've currently only got one save.

[Torquemadus]

Since 0.25 released, I've played a series of career saves on custom difficulty, gradually lowering the rewards I get from contracts as I went along. Each time, I had to learn new lessons about how to get by with less money and less science. I recently abandoned my most recent save at 20% rewards, as it was becoming too easy. I'm now in the early stages of my new save on 10% rewards.

Approaching Career Mode in this way probably isn't for everyone, but it does at least make resources scarce enough to make them actually meaningful. It's worth noting by the way, that the apparently OP Admin Building becomes a lot more interesting if you don't have enough resources to abuse it.

You can tell a lot about the current implementation of Career Mode by looking at the challenge offered by the difficulty settings. The hardest non-custom difficulty is set to 60% contract rewards. At 60%, the game absolutely throws resources at the player. This suggests that the game is supposed to be much harder, but some of the features intended to provide challenge are not in place yet.

[Joonatan1998]

One of the problems is that the contracts don't really scale with the costs, if you lower the rewards enough to make the late game balanced the start of the game becomes almost impossible. (and insanely grindy.)

On the "hard" setting, I think that the game is good untill you reach mun/minmus, then you can easily unlock the whole tech tree.

[Torquemadus]

One of the problems is that the contracts don't really scale with the costs, if you lower the rewards enough to make the late game balanced the start of the game becomes almost impossible. (and insanely grindy.)

This seems to be a definite balance issue in 0.25. I've managed to get round the problems in the early game by getting really good at building efficient ships, and making best possible use of the early contracts to squeeze out the resources I need. As soon as I land on the Mun, the game gets massively easier. I can only assume this is happening because Career Mode is unfinished and/or because of a lack of balancing in the current contracts.

Playing on very low rewards requires careful planning when it comes to choosing part test contracts. Some of them are very lucrative, while some are simply not financially viable at all and are best declined.

[TheSaint]

After having played career through a couple of times, I also prefer sandbox. I set my own constraints and goals, and come and go as I please. What I find myself doing a lot is editing a career mode save to unlock the entire tech tree and give myself a budget. That way I can still keep track of science points and costs, but I'm not trapped in the (very) broken tech tree.

[klgraham1013]

After having played career through a couple of times, I also prefer sandbox. I set my own constraints and goals, and come and go as I please. What I find myself doing a lot is editing a career mode save to unlock the entire tech tree and give myself a budget. That way I can still keep track of science points and costs, but I'm not trapped in the (very) broken tech tree.

I've done the same, as the science archive is a great way to track your achievements. In fact, I'd love a similar archive in sandbox without the science hooks.

[Fourjays]

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

I still think there is a fair comparison to be made. I doubt we're going to see any major shake-ups to the basic career functionality now that the game is entering beta.

If you look at games like ETS2 (or Prison Architect if you want to compare alpha to alpha) there is a loop of continual expansion and increased reward. In an ETS2 career you'll start by doing quick jobs (10-15) to get money to buy a truck. Once you own a truck you get more money for each load. Another 10-15 jobs later you can afford a second truck/driver and can probably go overseas. Longer trips means more money. Another 10-15 jobs later and you can have a third truck/driver and can go further than before. Perhaps another 10-15 jobs later you buy a second garage and another truck/driver. At this point you might be able to drive half way across Europe and get high value loads. Repeat this same cycle of expansion enough and you can drive right across Europe, will get nice loads of varying sizes and weights, and may own 4 or 5 garages and 15 trucks/drivers. The continual income will be in the region of £500,000 a week and you can continue to expand. One day, you may have an empire of 100 garages and 500 trucks/drivers. Should you make a mistake, you can always sell trucks or take out a loan.

KSP has the same loop initially. You build a rocket, go to space, get science/funds. You unlock a science node, build a bigger rocket, go to space, get more science/funds. Eventually you unlock a better science part, which gives you more science. So far, so good. But once you've got all the science parts you've tapped out the expansion. The only way to get more science/funds is to go further, and while you numerically get more, you lose the feedback as the player. Why would you go further? You get more science to get more parts, but why? Now that I think about it, this is pretty much the point when I'm getting bored - I've unlocked the science parts, got to the Mun and then stop. Further more, if you make a mistake (say 2 or 3 failures of an overly ambitious rocket) you'll likely be without funds or contracts, essentially making it game over.

Some of this could be fixed by balancing the science/funds/reputation. But there also needs to be more complex and rewarding science systems (at the cost of funds/complexity), and a hands-off system which provides a continual trickle of science/funds (would be a good way to make space stations/satellites/colonies useful). It needs that feeling of reward and purpose for the whole career, from Kerbol to Eeloo.

I'm not convinced that KSP is going to see these kind of changes in the future, but I hope I'm wrong as I'd love KSP's career to be as enjoyable long-term as ETS2's. For now I'll either be switching back to sandbox and spreadsheets, or giving science mode a go with an alternate tech tree.

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.

Thanks. I like this idea a lot.

[Joonatan1998]

I think that the main problem is that SQUAD seems to be trying to combine "complete freedom to play how you want to" and "micromanagement is bad (so no life support, costs for running the space center, construction times...)" with "tycoon-like game"

[boolybooly]

To be honest, as a big fan, I find I am not playing much at the moment though I am trying to help beta test another game so that is partly why. I like the challenge of KSP career mode on hardest settings but the mission system seems very procedural, offering crazy missions which don't make sense. So I am looking forward to the next update hoping the missions will be improved. I think they matter a lot and we are getting to the point now where the content has to be honed and balanced, which lets face it it isn't due to the previous emphasis on building the game systems which has succeeded in its intention.

IMHO the missions need to be more closely tailored to the play experience. It often doesn't make sense to do missions paying less than the cost of the part being tested for example so why offer them or impossible missions like testing launch stabilisers on the Mün. I would also like to see innovations in resourcing such as reputation for an achievement even if you dont have a mission for it, kind of like an invisible mission condition system, eg landing a Kerbal on Minmus or Duna or a probe or whatever should boost reputation whether you have a sponsor or not, so you can use the conversion system to turn that into other resources. In fact I think you probably need to be able to get money from space as well, on your own initiative ie all three resources should be available (sell moon rocks or mine potassium isotopes...!) so to place the initiative back with the player, because currently the missions control all resources except research and dictate what is possible which is actually inhibiting as missions tend to follow rather than lead your play. So as a player I feel like a puppet dangling from the broken strings of an incomplete mission system but I am sure that will improve a lot in future updates so I am happy to be patient.

[Sasquatch_Punter]

Expansion. That's a big one. Currently career mode has no drive for expansion in the late game. After the tech tree is unlocked and you start hitting the 250k-500k fund range, the game starts to just feel like sandbox mode with contracts. Then, instead of expanding their space program, many players start a new career... because the strength of that mode lies almost exclusively in its early game progression.

Things like resource extraction, expanded base/station operations, life support, and deeper money management are sorely needed for a richer mid-to-late game, IMHO. Simply stretching facility/skill/tech progression out to fill that space is pretty pointless, because it's finite no matter how many nodes you need to unlock.

[LethalDose]

Expansion. That's a big one. Currently career mode has no drive for expansion in the late game. After the tech tree is unlocked and you start hitting the 250k-500k fund range, the game starts to just feel like sandbox mode with contracts. Then, instead of expanding their space program, many players start a new career... because the strength of that mode lies almost exclusively in its early game progression.

Things like resource extraction, expanded base/station operations, life support, and deeper money management are sorely needed for a richer mid-to-late game, IMHO. Simply stretching facility/skill/tech progression out to fill that space is pretty pointless, because it's finite no matter how many nodes you need to unlock.

I think mid/late game play is a big issue for a lot of developers, not just SQUAD and not just indies. They spend a lot of time focusing on the early content/mechanics, and get tunnel vision there. In WoW's beta, the quests were originally only there for the first few levels to give players some guidance. The testers said "hey, we like the quests, where did they go?", and Blizzard listened. SQUAD has a very hard time listening, the conversation is almost always a repeat of:

SQUAD:"We're interested in the community's feedback."

Community: "We want X."

SQUAD: "Adding X takes the game in a direction we don't want to go in."

Yeah, SQUAD has less manpower than Blizzard did 10 years ago, but they can still take a page from their playbook.

[klgraham1013]

I'm really glad I got over my "stock only" phase. At the time, I believed Squad would be adding all the mods that made the game great. Seems that's not happening. I can't even recommend KSP to people these days without handing them a zip file.

"Here put this in your GameData folder before playing."

Here I was, oh so long ago, a gleam in my eye, and what sat before me was a game with designs at being the Flight Simulator of space sims. Years later, and we still don't even have a Mass readout in the VAB.

[Francois424]

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.

You can pick science from the game's menu, n that sense you have the 'old career' game mode. Only science.

I am strongly thinking of going that way when 0.90 hits. Not sure yet, but I love the science without being glued to low-cost missions.

[Bigbootie]

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.

This would be AWESOME! I'm in agreement with most folks for career mode in it's current state and I am very much awaiting the release of the beta version.

[Docsprock]

You can pick science from the game's menu, n that sense you have the 'old career' game mode. Only science.

I am strongly thinking of going that way when 0.90 hits. Not sure yet, but I love the science without being glued to low-cost missions.

Yeah, Ive got 2 Career saved games, 2 Science saves and 5 Sandbox saves. I just lose interest in the career games when I get ridiculous contracts. The science games are more of 'speed runs', to see how fast I can unlock the tech tree. Sandbox is where I get the most enjoyment these days.

[Xavven]

I still think there is a fair comparison to be made. I doubt we're going to see any major shake-ups to the basic career functionality now that the game is entering beta.

If you look at games like ETS2 (or Prison Architect if you want to compare alpha to alpha) there is a loop of continual expansion and increased reward. In an ETS2 career you'll start by doing quick jobs (10-15) to get money to buy a truck. Once you own a truck you get more money for each load. Another 10-15 jobs later you can afford a second truck/driver and can probably go overseas. Longer trips means more money. Another 10-15 jobs later and you can have a third truck/driver and can go further than before. Perhaps another 10-15 jobs later you buy a second garage and another truck/driver. At this point you might be able to drive half way across Europe and get high value loads. Repeat this same cycle of expansion enough and you can drive right across Europe, will get nice loads of varying sizes and weights, and may own 4 or 5 garages and 15 trucks/drivers. The continual income will be in the region of £500,000 a week and you can continue to expand. One day, you may have an empire of 100 garages and 500 trucks/drivers. Should you make a mistake, you can always sell trucks or take out a loan.

KSP has the same loop initially. You build a rocket, go to space, get science/funds. You unlock a science node, build a bigger rocket, go to space, get more science/funds. Eventually you unlock a better science part, which gives you more science. So far, so good. But once you've got all the science parts you've tapped out the expansion. The only way to get more science/funds is to go further, and while you numerically get more, you lose the feedback as the player. Why would you go further? You get more science to get more parts, but why? Now that I think about it, this is pretty much the point when I'm getting bored - I've unlocked the science parts, got to the Mun and then stop. Further more, if you make a mistake (say 2 or 3 failures of an overly ambitious rocket) you'll likely be without funds or contracts, essentially making it game over.

Some of this could be fixed by balancing the science/funds/reputation. But there also needs to be more complex and rewarding science systems (at the cost of funds/complexity), and a hands-off system which provides a continual trickle of science/funds (would be a good way to make space stations/satellites/colonies useful). It needs that feeling of reward and purpose for the whole career, from Kerbol to Eeloo.

I'm not convinced that KSP is going to see these kind of changes in the future, but I hope I'm wrong as I'd love KSP's career to be as enjoyable long-term as ETS2's. For now I'll either be switching back to sandbox and spreadsheets, or giving science mode a go with an alternate tech tree.

Wow... I will totally admit I wasn't looking that far ahead, and I think you're spot on. The game must have a positive feedback loop of completing missions to build your infrastructure to complete bigger missions, but the system could just end too soon with the completion of the tech tree. I'm not saying there's no fun to be had after unlocking everything, but just that the tycoon elements cease to exist at that point. I wonder if the building upgrade system will be enough, or if the developer would have to implement resource mining and extra-planetary launch pad type elements (which they said they aren't planning on doing) to have any semblance of an end-game.

[Xavven]

Expansion. That's a big one. Currently career mode has no drive for expansion in the late game. After the tech tree is unlocked and you start hitting the 250k-500k fund range, the game starts to just feel like sandbox mode with contracts. Then, instead of expanding their space program, many players start a new career... because the strength of that mode lies almost exclusively in its early game progression.

Things like resource extraction, expanded base/station operations, life support, and deeper money management are sorely needed for a richer mid-to-late game, IMHO. Simply stretching facility/skill/tech progression out to fill that space is pretty pointless, because it's finite no matter how many nodes you need to unlock.

Oops, I should have read your post before replying. Yeah, those are my thoughts exactly. There must be things to do after you've explored all planets and unlocked the tech tree, and upgraded all facilities, and those things should be more open ended, like having bases and orbital stations, fuel stations, etc.