Career too hard?

[harlikwin]

So I'm curious, how do other folks complete the Aerial Survey missions without a plane? I tried sticking wings and an LV-909 on a rocket, but I couldn't really get enough dV to get to any of the zones. Going to orbit first would require pretty precise de-orbiting to survey correctly.

Anyone figured this out?

I never even bothered until I had enough sci to build a Kerbaltastic plane (which killed my one and only kerbal so far upon "landing") but the contract got completed.

You could do it by shooting rockets out there I imagine, but it would be hard and probably not terribly economical.

[SpaceSmith]

Is there any way to start a career with all of the buildings fully upgraded? Like before the update.

I would like to see that as a mode as well. Like Science, Career, Career Easy Start, and Sandbox or something.

[Jean Deaux]

So I'm curious, how do other folks complete the Aerial Survey missions without a plane? I tried sticking wings and an LV-909 on a rocket, but I couldn't really get enough dV to get to any of the zones. Going to orbit first would require pretty precise de-orbiting to survey correctly.

Anyone figured this out?

Those were some of the firsts contracts I tackled. I used map mode to fly my rocket and adjust my landing trajectory to be in the area of the test (don't forget to lead your target as the planet just keeps on spinning). Once I hit the zone, crew report for the win! I didn't go into orbit, stayed in the atmosphere for better control of landing area in a shorter distance.

[Xavven]

The cost of the part should at least be covered by the contract... I mean really, we want you to buy this part from us at full price and test it for $5.

You can offset that a little bit by recovering the part, so long as it's a test that doesn't leave the Kerbin SOI. Once I'm on to Mun contracts and beyond, I just about stop doing part contracts, but every once in a while a part test comes along with a tasty payout. Like 1 million for testing a LFB on Duna. I definitely do those

[Srpadget]

I don't agree that Career (even on Hard) is HARD, per se, at least for experienced players. OTOH, even on Easy it would probably be frustratingly difficult for a beginner. (Background: I started with what is now Science, before the current Career existed. I still recommend that option for beginners, as the limited parts and limited capabilities p-by-step progression through the game's steep learning curve without throwing a lot of unnecessary additional constraints on the newbie.)

That said, I do agree that (especially on Hard) a career game can get awfully grindy while farming contracts for Funds for the all-important first tier of building upgrades. But I don't think the stuff most people have been complaining about are the same as the parts which actually make it grindy (at least to me).

Sure, you have to do a lot of contracts other than "explore a new world". Sure, some of the parts testing conditions are difficult-to-impossible to achieve. But they are most certainly not "unrealistic". My job puts me in the world of flight testing now and again, and seemingly-nonsensical flight conditions with lots of ugly instrumentation bolted onto your beautiful airplane is EXACTLY what flight testing is like. And I ABSOLUTELY don't understand the complaints (also voiced when the contract system was first unveiled in V0.24) about testing airplane landing gear in orbit/escape trajectory. Those parts are in this game not for "airplanes" per se, but for SPACEPLANES. The landing gear vital for that big-deal Laythe mission had bloody well better work right the FIRST time they get used for real--and that means knowing for sure that they won't burst from internal pressure while in vacuum; that the rubber in the tires won't go brittle from passing through the Van Kerman Radiation Belt or from months in the baking heat/frigid cold of the space environment, etc etc etc. And contracts are far less monotonous than they were a week ago, when all we had in stock was Explore Planet/Moon, Test Part, and Rescue Kerbal. The addition of Fine Print is lovely boon to gameplay while grinding out contracts for building upgrades. (Though the frequency of survey missions is really frustrating in the pre-airplane early game, as they're nigh unto impossible without wings, jets, and landing gear.)

I also don't understand why the minimum acceptable payout for a part testing mission has to be greater than the cost of the part (other than separators and radial decouplers, which are by definition expended when tested). This is why we have recovery costs, after all. You can turn a profit with small payouts. (Though I do agree that 30 Funds for a "test while landed" isn't worth your time when trying to accumulate a million-plus to upgrade R&D.)

No, my primary beef with the grindiness of contracts is the enormous amount of time I spend looking at the new offerings and rejecting "test "Part FOO" at high speed, low altitude", over and over, just to have it replaced by testing the exact same Part FOO under equally difficult conditions. The contract offers seem to get "stuck" and insist on a particular contract subtype far too much of the time. I have LITERALLY spent 20 minutes at a stretch just rejecting contract after contract after contract for in-flight testing of the same three parts, over and over and over, with the monotony broken only by the occasional foray into an even less attractive ground test of the same stinkin' part.

Heck, I'm THRILLED when I get a "Test Small Gear Bay on escape trajectory". The payout in the early game is pretty respectable (especially after 20 consecutive repetitions of "test parachute in flight" and "test radial decoupler in flight" offers) and the contract is reasonably easy to pull off before getting jets, wings, and the gear itself. If I can manage two or three "escape trajectory" contracts at once, I can pull off a 6-figure payout for a single mission (a single mission that takes far less time than it took me to keep rejecting those "test parachute at 5000 meters at supersonic speed" offers!).

I seriously spend more time rejecting essentially identical variations of the exact same in-flight or on-ground test of the SAME PART (over and over and over and...) than the time I spend executing the missions. THAT is the grindy bit, to my mind.

I trust and hope that our heroic devs will figure out some way to get more variety in the OFFERS we're getting, even with the current selection of mission types, and/or that we'll eventually get some way of telling Gene Kerman "don't bring me any more contracts that look like THIS".

Edited December 20, 2014 by Srpadget

[Pirke]

Career on hard mode, with FAR and DRE can be hard indeed

My latest test mission involved testing a parachute (I use RealChutes). It was a decent pay out, well worth the cost of building and launching. However, after getting to the required altitude and speed the chute didn't want to deploy (due to real chute mod). To be able to edit the deployment settings I needed the action group window, and for that I needed to upgrade the VAB. I had about 450k funds (only the launchpad was updated at that time), so I decided to upgrade the VAB. Yeah! Parachute specs changed, and the mission was a success.

Until... landing. Almost no refunds as I jettisoned most stuff, and the first launch was a waste because the chute didn't deply. So I accept a recon mission and start designing a new jet.

In the sandbox (and before 0.90), I could build some nice low altitude non-turbo jets, but this would be the first jet launch in career mode. Jeb feels confident, jet spools up and we start rolling on the runway. BUT WHAT IS THIS??? There are bumps in this level 1 dirt road... the grass next to runway is flatter than the runway itself. Jeb dies in a horrible crash

To make things worse: that jet had cost me all of my money, which usually isn't bad for a jet as it returns for refunds. However, now I have the grand total of 96 credits left...

I cancel the recon mission (you can't go negative due to the fine), but I can't cancel the other one (Mun mission that I accepted way too soon...). The highest up-front paying mission I could find was 9k for another recon. I built the cheapest jet that would still fly stable, put a parachute on it instead of landing gear as I couldn't afford 3 gears. Launched from the VAB with the launch stabilizer: spool up jet and release. Who needs gear anyway?

So yeah, it's hard... need to grind for money now. I really want the new R&D, but that's over a million. Still, there's enough variety in the missions to keep it fun. Random exploring the galaxy is simply too expensive, but that's what the sandbox is for. Career mode should be hard, and seeing Jeb die permanently is heartbreaking, but he will be remembered. Unfortunately I also seem to be running out of pilots in general (I shouldn't drink & play hard career mode at the same time ), the new applicants are all scientist or engineer. But they can't keep the nose pointed retrograde during reentry, and with DRE heat is pretty damaging. Yeah, fun game!

[Yemo]

Science payout from contracts is so high, and sometimes absurdly high, that science quickly becomes irrelevant.

Like very early on (only launch pad upgrade and minimal invested science), you can do eg 2 minmus survey missions and get like hundreds of science in one go - on hard mode...

[zarakon]

I feel like science has proceeded at a reasonable pace. Are you using any of the +science strategies from the admin building? Because those definitely give too much

"hundreds of science in one go" isn't really all that much when T6 nodes are 160 each, and there are 9 of them.

I really like being able to get a significant amount of science from contracts. I always found experiments to be a bit tedious on their own, especially when just abusing biomes to do the same things 15 times at the Mun/Minmus. With rewards from contracts, I feel less need to do the tedious stuff.

[Yemo]

@zarakon:

I dont use the admin building, I think it is unbalanced at the moment.

I got about 500 science in my second minmus mission, when I only had invested 103 science total so far and only upgraded the launchpad.

Playing on hard, so should be 60% science return. Even if it isnt 60%, it is ridiculous, imho. And that were only 2 contracts and a cheap rocket...

edit: I should convert science to funds at like 75% or so...

Edited December 20, 2014 by Yemo

[liweih]

I think the orbital science research money printing machine is still functioning once your reputation reach a certain point.

[thyriel]

You can land on the Mun without upgrading the buildings, just don't also expect to also return

It's doable without upgrading any buildings to get to mun and back, so i think for hard mode it's fine when people can upgrade buildings later and need to build very efficient rockets to succeed. It would even work building interplanetary unmanned landers (If you know how to make transfers without spacecenter upgrade)

[ArmchairGravy]

I'm playing normal mode, and now have everything but the last tier of science unlocked. The only building I have maxed is the launch pad. The R&D building costs 3.1 million for its last upgrade. I have just over one million in funds. The explore Duna, Ike, and Eve missions are on tap, but those will only net me another million or so. I've placed multiple satellites and bases, so it's not like I'm slacking. The building upgrade costs need lowered. Definitely the R&D building at the least. It's just too grindy in the early and the transition to late game. Mid-game was perfect. Lowering upgrade costs by 30% would mean that I would still have to work, but would not be daunted by a grind.

[zarakon]

Launchpad upgrade cost is fine

VAB is a little too expensive

R&D is far too expensive, especially the second upgrade

Tracking station second upgrade is too expensive for what little it provides

Rockets are too cheap. I never feel like cost is really an issue while building them, they're just drops in the bucket compared to the building upgrades

[Frostiken]

Personally I think science reward payouts are too high (IMO they should be removed entirely from most contracts), and fund payouts are too low. On hard, there's too much grinding. It's not *hard*, it's just *boring*.

One of the missions I have is to put a space station around Kerbin. Total payout with advance is 45k Kerbucks. That doesn't cover the cost of the mission whatsoever.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Frostiken

[Wanderfound]

Personally I think science reward payouts are too high (IMO they should be removed entirely from most contracts), and fund payouts are too low. On hard, there's too much grinding. It's not *hard*, it's just *boring*.

Go to strategy building, fire up one of the "convert science to funds" strategies. Sorted.

(and, of course, all of the old funds-gathering tricks: probes in orbit for "science from..." contracts, etc)

[Xavven]

Personally I think science reward payouts are too high (IMO they should be removed entirely from most contracts), and fund payouts are too low. On hard, there's too much grinding. It's not *hard*, it's just *boring*.

One of the missions I have is to put a space station around Kerbin. Total payout with advance is 45k Kerbucks. That doesn't cover the cost of the mission whatsoever.

I got pretty lucky with the contracts today on vanilla Hard career: test the KR-2L in Duna orbit for over 2,000,000 funds. I combined that with not one, but TWO additional Duna satellite contracts and I'm now halfway to unlocking the Level 3 R&D facility. Mwhahaha!

So yeah, some of the contracts have bad payouts for the effort, and some have really good payouts. Part of the strategy (right now, anyway) is picking the rights ones. Of course, ideally they'd ALL be a little more reasonable.

[spinomonkey]

I believe the problem we face right now is an unbalanced game: At the moment, there's a lot of incentive to not explore. I'm not sure I have any considerable suggestions, but it feels like there's too many Kerbin contracts- or perhaps they provide too much in terms of rewards. I shouldn't be receiving 100K rewards for doing an easier experiment then if I was going to the Mun. In fact, a lot of the reason I stick to Kerbin/Mun is due to the facility upgrades costing so much. Going to Duna or Eve would be fun, but I'd rather stick around locally, rake in some cash from some grindy missions, upgrade my facilities and head to Duna at a much later date (like after completing the tech tree). It's not like there isn't a lot of contacts to do locally- which is sort of the problem. I realize the contracts build on complexity based on what you've done. But after visiting the Mun, visiting Duna isn't the next logical step in my mind. That's a lot of resources and planning- and frankly for a new player that means a lot of opportunity to fail and waste all that money invested. Why aren't we seeing probe missions to the far reaches of the solar system first? Simple- yet high value contracts that may not provide a lot of science, but bring in enough cash to support expanding the space center or at least launching enough vessels without the fear of going broke.

In short: reduce the quantity of contracts, especially on Kerbin. But increase the quantity and value of larger long range missions.

[timsfitz]

I'm having a lot of fun with .90. Just upgraded my research center to level 3 and will be going to Jool soon. Love building bases around the solar system. Got 3 million kredits for building a small 6 Kerbal rover base on Gilly. Get your reputation up people and money won't be a problem.

[Moesly_Armlis]

After playing at the hardest setting my plan was to launch 20 straight-up into space rockets and complete eight "science data from around kerbin space" contracts each time. This is not hard, just grinding. Any other contract is not worth completing. Why mine for gold when you can easily pick up platinium. Hard setting should give hard to accomplish contracts, not just repetition.

At my current "hard setting" career it is way too easy. I am not bragging but I just pick platinium contracts and thats all. Buildings that are important were upgraded (launchpad, mission control, astronaut complex, administration and tracking station and next is the R&D) and level 1 tech tree is completed with many parts in four hours of run time. Maybe I could finish the whole thing and not leave kerbin but what is the point.

Repeating the same contract or just selecting the ones that suit your tastes is fine, it kinda feels we should just grant some extra funds, science, and reputation from the beginning. Then the whole starting from scratch feeling is lost. Punching trees!

Maybe “bonnie†contracts (something difficult to accomplish after unlocking a series of contracts) should be available that launches your career rapidly, so that experienced players can enjoy “hard†career without the grind.

harderS beta (my first go at 0.90 with the hardest career custom settings)

Fun fact at 3:26 in the video the lyrics are: “they shot him with a really big numberâ€Â

[Marclev]

It seems that a proper "hard" mode is tough to completely iron out. Like just last update, people were complaining that hard mode is too EASY, which I find ironic. It seems though that .90 has a far better hard mode balance than .25.

I don't agree. Hard mode for me right now is just grinding cash to upgrade the buildings as you can't do much without the upgrades. That's not a lot of fun. Even worse, I know that once I finally upgrade everything then it will be like 0.25 and just be easy.

It would be better if hard mode actually introduced hard contracts (and not the "Do a survey mission without plane parts" artificially hard kind) instead of just making everything more expensive, while lowering the amount of income for contracts to the point where doing any of the test missions is practically impossible to make profitable.

[Xavven]

I don't agree. Hard mode for me right now is just grinding cash to upgrade the buildings as you can't do much without the upgrades. That's not a lot of fun. Even worse, I know that once I finally upgrade everything then it will be like 0.25 and just be easy.

It would be better if hard mode actually introduced hard contracts (and not the "Do a survey mission without plane parts" artificially hard kind) instead of just making everything more expensive, while lowering the amount of income for contracts to the point where doing any of the test missions is practically impossible to make profitable.

What part tests are you doing? I guess the ones in flight around Kerbin aren't all that profitable, but I seriously just hauled 2,000,000 funds on Hard (60% rewards) on a single contract to test an LFB in Duna orbit, something which is easy to attain.

I think that once you complete an exploration contract, you'll start getting satellite contracts for that SOI. Both of those are way more interesting and profitable IMO. Instead of testing another part on a suborbital trajectory at 80km altitude around Kerbin, I've been exploring Jool, Bop, and Pol, and putting satellites in Molniya orbit around Duna and Jool.

[Frostiken]

It seems that a proper "hard" mode is tough to completely iron out. Like just last update, people were complaining that hard mode is too EASY, which I find ironic. It seems though that .90 has a far better hard mode balance than .25.

Hard mode should be presenting more demanding contracts and make it much harder to grind ........ out around Kerbin. On the other hand, the reward for tackling these bigger contracts should be much greater.

Maybe it's because of the slew of ....ty video games like Skyrim these days that have corrupted people's idea of what 'hard' should be, but 'hard' shouldn't mean 'frustrating'. Turning enemies into bullet sponges ala Bioshock Infinite might technically be 'hard', but it's not fun whatsoever. It's stupid. Hard mode should exhaust you of contracts around Kerbin sooner rather than later, and be pushing Mun missions on you while you're still somewhat young in the tech tree. At the point where you should be going to Minmus in Normal, Hard should be pushing you in the direction of Duna.

The infinite supply of ........ contracts means in 'hard' mode I never actually have to leave Kerbin.

The hard mode settings are a joke too. I set science gain to around 0.4, but I still get missions around Kerbin that will happily hand out relatively high amounts of science. I can't imagine how ....-easy this game is on normal or easy. You could probably max out the tech tree before leaving the Kerbin system, without even trying.

Hard needs to have actual gameplay changes and not just some silly sliders. You know those asteroids? Put one on a collision course with the KSC that will blow it to bits. Toss out a mission that says that there's been a manufacturer recall of all SRBs or something.

At the very least, hard needs to quickly cut you off from just doing Kerbin missions over and over and over.

Stalker and Metro 2033 are considered to have done 'hard mode' (Ranger mode) very well. What it did was completely remove your HUD requiring you to use in-game cues to be alert to things like your batteries dying (though you could check your total ammo levels in a way that was impractical in combat). Ammo was insanely scarce. The games also made it possible for the player to die in a couple of hits. HOWEVER, in return, these games also made enemies take realistic damage too. A rifle shot to the head puts down just about every human enemy and most mutants. It was hard, but it was fair.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Frostiken

[djnattyd]

Hard mode should be presenting more demanding contracts...

*snip*

Think of it this way, they could've gone the "ArmA 2/3 Hard" (or even Silent Hunter hard) route where enemies aren't immortal bullet sponges but the slightest miscalculation and it's game over.

No hard mode isn't perfect and yes it needs some balancing with the rewards but I'd much rather it be "grindy but doable" hard than "I didn't have the perfect ascent profile and now my entire space program is bankrupt." hard.

[ghpstage]

*snip*

Think of it this way, they could've gone the "ArmA 2/3 Hard" (or even Silent Hunter hard) route where enemies aren't immortal bullet sponges but the slightest miscalculation and it's game over.

No hard mode isn't perfect and yes it needs some balancing with the rewards but I'd much rather it be "grindy but doable" hard than "I didn't have the perfect ascent profile and now my entire space program is bankrupt." hard.

True, having a slip up = game over being a common event isn't really suitable for this type of game. I think a compromise could be made quite easily however.

If the difficulty and value of available contracts were to be tied to the cash you have banked and in ground assets (to avoid the most obvious exploit!) then upgrading your facilities would require going further afield but low level missions would be available again should you approach bankruptcy.

Removal of science from contracts and that outsourced R&D lunacy would also force players to do actual science stuff in different places to continue to advance.

Edited December 23, 2014 by ghpstage

[zarakon]

Removal of science from contracts and that outsourced R&D lunacy would also force players to do actual science stuff in different places to continue to advance.

I agree about the outsourced R&D problem, but I don't understand why people are saying contracts give too much science. For me, the only ones that give very much are the ones that are making me collect science anyway, like getting a bunch of seismic readings from other planets/moons. Repeating experiments in multiple biomes is still the easiest and second-most-broken feeling (after outsourced R&D) way of collecting tons of science.