How balanced is the career in 0.90?

[Pthigrivi]

The main point is creating a new set of goals away from the tech tree. Because they'd be linked to contracts you could gain both funds and reputation for visiting them or building bases near them. They could also give kerbals who visit them experience boosts, speeding their way to additional abilities. Intelligently networking between them would just speed your development. Remember also there's going to be new stuff when fairings and ISRU gets implemented. Even so, eventually, yes, you would max out the tech tree and make loads of money and have all the tools you need to do whatever you want. No matter what, this is going to happen before you've visited every biome in the game. At least once you've entered this lego free-play zone there would be new challenges and new things to find.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Kedwin Hubble]

Primordial Goo Pond: +500% to science

Spooky Object: +500% to science

There should be a contract for directed panspermia from a primordial goo pond on Eve to the greener pastures on Laythe.

[Aragosnat]

I think career mode is like an accordion with balance as you progress ... but isn't the point of Administration Facility to help you offset this? If you have too much science, you can fix that by trading science for funds.

Problem is. If I already have 20000 points of unspent science.Then the admin is a worthless thing. As I cannot convert those saved ponts into Funds or Rep. True I could always re-aquire it to reduce it down. But, the thing is. I don't see a dime of it. Unless I edited it.

But, yeah. Depending on how you go about it. You could easily stay within Kerbin's atmosphere (taking all the Historical altitude contracts 5k, 11k?, 22k? 33k? and 55k?) and do the the explore Kerbin till you have basic Jets. Which is not that hard to achieve on normal. Once at the point of Basic Jets. You will never have to leave Kerbin and don't even have to return the plane to the lumpy runway to make a profit and have a better science return some of the time then a Mun run. All within the 18 ton and 30 part limit. (Yes. I do realize you might need to know how to land without chutes if you want to return the plane back to KSC as well as the contact becomes better with more places needed to visit.)

Also think that the current part and weight limit would be good for the level 0 look they have reworked on. But, the current look (a.k.a. level 1 look) does need to be inbetween the 30 to 255 part limit. Weight not sure as I have hit the 140 ton limit very easily even with a 30 part limit still there (just have to use the right parts. =^.^= ).

Back on Science points. Way to easy to aquire them. Science points in contracts make it pointless to go beyond Kerbin's atmosphere and SOI. Even to an extent it makes it even pointless to explore Kerbin for science points with the exception of the landing pad and runway for quick points earily on.

[Valiant Corvus]

Actually I found it pretty easy. Do a few missions, get far enough to where you can reliably get a rocket to minmus, raise enough funds for upgrades and marketting campaigns, then dump 100% of your funds into Science (I can't remember the name of that campaign)

Within a few missions to Minmus you'll have your tech tree maxed out. The only thing that's slightly annoying is accumulating funds, since it's just a grind really.

[r_rolo1]

I'd say a combination of the first two options: there is way too much science, and too little funds. The main problem with the funds is that the building upgrades are way over priced.

This

I already posted in this thread when 0.90 got out saying that this was my first impression and playing after that only reinforced my impression. Especially in harder levels, money is comparatively scarce and science and rep are ridiculously easy to get in base game ( that is, without admin strategies ).

And more, the buildings are also heavily inflated in terms of funds ... to a comparison in my current moderate+ dif game ( hard nowadays is not hard for me, just grindy, so I simply upped some knobs in moderate to make it more amenable to my current lack of time to play ), I can make a Mun/Minmus/Ike/Gilly ( choose one ) manned mission and return for about 40k funds ( I have some finely tuned rockets with SRBs as first stages ), while upgrading the VAB from level 2 to 3 is 4,5 million funds. In other words, making a VAB upgrade ( not building from scratch ) costs 1000x more than a RL Saturn V equivalent ...

[eddiew]

Way (way) too much science. Slightly too little funds.

With the new biomes on everything, and the default tech tree, 10-20% is about right to encourage you to go off and explore the other planets, otherwise you can (still) max out on Mun and Minmus, and possibly a trip or two to Duna/Ike. Contracts also reward far too much science; you don't need any of that at all. I've been using Contract Science Modifier to squash it out. Field science is the way forward, and LV-N's are a luxury, not a requirement for anything nearer than Duna.

Funds are mostly down to personal taste; I managed just fine at 80%, but some people will consider it grindy even at 100. The first facility upgrades are really quite expensive compared to the missions available at the time, and the runway is basically unusable at T1, and dangerous until T3, which could arguably be filed under 'low funds' since the upgrades are totally mandatory if you want to do planes. Ironically it gets easier later on, as you get showered with √400,000+ contracts that only require a third of that budget to run. Overall, difficulty curve for funds is upside down.

Buuuut... Squad already said they'd be doing a lot of balancing in 1.0 anyway, so they probably already know this all

[RedScourge]

That admin campaign that takes some of your funds and gives you science is MASSIVELY overpowered, especially in higher difficulty settings, and the others seem rather pointless. When I tried difficult career settings with extremely cost efficient rockets, I found myself with hundreds of science points I was unable to use, and 500k+ short of the research facility upgrade.

I definitely agree with those who are saying that there needs to be at least one level of VAB added somewhere in the middle, as 40 to 255 part count is an insane jump.

I'd say the thing I find the third most unbalanced to be the dollar amounts assigned to the contracts. I found myself avoiding the ones that ask you to test a part at a certain altitude and speed range, because there were far easier ones that paid better, and the super low end contracts often don't even pay your cost of capital.

Edited February 23, 2015 by RedScourge
fix

[Lord Aurelius]

Depends what difficulty setting and what point I'm at in the game. In general, the early game feels overly grindy since you don't have a lot of parts to gather science with and you need science to unlock the parts, and some of the building upgrades are quite expensive so you have to do a bunch of annoying contracts to get money to upgrade to get EVA reports, surface samples and to remove the stupidly low part limits. Later in the game you can get free money from satellites/probes parked in orbit around various bodies and there is a tremendous amount of science to gather once you're able to do manned landings (Mun and Minmus have enough over their biomes to unlock the entire tech tree), not to mention all the biomes they added to the other planets.

Not very well balanced either way, early game is tedious and later game is basically sandbox with very little sweet spot in between.

[Owen5595]

I like the challenge career mode gives me with low funds and such, it forces you to think and plan

[Barefoot Friar]

I think it's out of balance somehow.

1. I think the tree needs to be pulled out into a forest and the nodes tweaked (increased) to give a shallower, but longer, curve. This is one thing that will help encourage interplanetary exploration for the sake of science. It will also help me actually explore a bit without poor Jeb being stuck in space without power because I have no effing batteries yet. And finally, I've only just started building planes; why should I have to research those nodes if I have no use for them? It's too grindy.

2. I think the building progression is way too steep, and that the VAB is especially unbalanced. Back on the bottom of page 3 of this thread, Bill Phil said:

Well, more levels could be added in between that don't change the look of the buildings. I mean, the current 1st VAB is big, and a few simple behind the scenes upgrades would boost part count to 50. Then 75. Then 100 and tier 2 looks. Then 150. Then 255, and finally unlimited with tier 3 looks.

Such a solution is simple and elegant. It doesn't require any new artwork, yet it allows a more incremental growth in the space program. Add in a longer, gentler science tree and you've got the makings of a long, fun game. I think I read somewhere around here that the barn is coming bck. Let it go along with the existing level one VAB to create four visual levels, but then add in several more levels that increase the number of parts per ship without changing the looks. Easy-peasy.

3. The contract system is helping to hide how broken the tech tree is. Giving science for completing contracts is good, but being able to unlock the entire tree without getting beyond LKO (and within one Kerbal day) is out of balance. Maybe we need to reduce the amount of science given per contract, or eliminate it entirely. When I get home I'll play with the sliders on the new game screen and see what I can figure out.

4. The contracts themselves need more tweaking. I think I should hit a certain rep level before I get a contract for Mun exploration. I also think that a contract that's going to demand all-new hardware needs to pay for the hardware. It does on the easier settings, but does it on moderate/hard?

I play with Fine Print (I think... I don't actually remember, and I can't check it at the moment.) At any rate, I wish I could tell it to give me contracts of a certain nature. I'd like to request a contract to explore planets, or request more sat launches, or request fewer bases and stations. Taken too far, this would throw the game out of balance again, but if there was a limit of some kind like the number of the requested contracts available at one time I think it would work. Someone else suggested being able to write one's own contracts and have the game give an amount it would pay, which seems like a cool (if complicated to program) idea. I'd like to go to Jool, but I'd like the game to pay me for it. Why can't I approach Goliath, for instance, and say so? They're paying for my Duna trip. Seems like they might want to pay for my Jool mission.

5. Strategies break the game, bad. Science is already easy enough that I've maxed science (and that includes the Near Future nodes with which I play) without ever leaving Kerbin and her moons. Add in a strategy and I could have cut my time in half. Maybe it's just supposed to be there for new players (with which I'm okay), but I think a better-balanced game would negate the need for them.

Don't get me wrong-- I love KSP more than any game I've ever played. I've liked .90 much better than any version I've played (been playing since .19). I've played for countless hours, and have been building bases and stations and going everywhere I can. I want this game to succeed. I just think the science system, especially as it interacts with the contracts and the building advancements, is a bit out of kilter and needs a good going over.

- - - Updated - - -

Another thought: What is the point of increasing scientists' returns with experience if I can get all the science I need for the entire game without getting Bill past two stars? I want a reason to keep sending him on missions and a reason to go land on, and bring back science from, various planets. Otherwise it's just sandbox again. I like sandbox, but if I want to play it I've got a great little button on the start new game screen that lets me do just that. Career mode (and by extension, science mode) needs to be greatly lengthened.

[rosenkranz]

I voted too much science and after some thinking I probably should have voted 'way too much science'

However, that is only if you have 'Outsourced R&D' running. Even at minimum commitment, it produces way, way too much science. Personally, I've scaled it back to 1 science / 135 funds (rather than the 1/35 default) and that works better. Getting the science isn't too grindy but still, this is going to be your first (and perhaps only) strategy in the admin building. You aren't going to switch this one out until you have completed the tech tree.

Sadly, none of the other strategies really produce results worth upgrading from tier 1.

[Superfluous J]

A lot of very good points that I totally agree with, however I have a problem with both points in part 4.

4. The contracts themselves need more tweaking. I think I should hit a certain rep level before I get a contract for Mun exploration. I also think that a contract that's going to demand all-new hardware needs to pay for the hardware. It does on the easier settings, but does it on moderate/hard?

I think Mun and Minmus contracts should not have a rep requirement. I mean, they're obvious goals, attainable with VERY early tech, and are kind of the "intro mission" to the game. Once you've landed on Mun you know most of what you need to do to get elsewhere. Making that a goal from very early on is a good thing.

Also, on harder difficulties the contract does NOT need to pay for the part. If you're playing on super grindy hard mode, you should be bringing those parts back for recovery. Preferably at 100%

[Barefoot Friar]

Well, good point. I definitely could live with both of the things you said. Maybe instead of putting in a rep requirement, the amount of science from them should be reduced. The point is to make it harder to max the tree with just Mun and Minmus landings.

I've just recently (as in, just in the past three or four in-game days) begun trying to land things back at KSC for a refund. Before that I was playing like I do on Sandbox, where I just delete or crash ships for which I no longer have a need. Adding the ability to land stuff back at home increases the initial cost and development time, but lowers total cost. I'm going to be doing that from now on, even though I am to the point now I can afford not to.

[Yemo]

I think it's out of balance somehow.

1. I think the tree needs to be pulled out into a forest and the nodes tweaked (increased) to give a shallower, but longer, curve. This is one thing that will help encourage interplanetary exploration for the sake of science. It will also help me actually explore a bit without poor Jeb being stuck in space without power because I have no effing batteries yet. And finally, I've only just started building planes; why should I have to research those nodes if I have no use for them? It's too grindy.

2. I think the building progression is way too steep, and that the VAB is especially unbalanced. Back on the bottom of page 3 of this thread, Bill Phil said:

Such a solution is simple and elegant. It doesn't require any new artwork, yet it allows a more incremental growth in the space program. Add in a longer, gentler science tree and you've got the makings of a long, fun game. I think I read somewhere around here that the barn is coming bck. Let it go along with the existing level one VAB to create four visual levels, but then add in several more levels that increase the number of parts per ship without changing the looks. Easy-peasy.

3. The contract system is helping to hide how broken the tech tree is. Giving science for completing contracts is good, but being able to unlock the entire tree without getting beyond LKO (and within one Kerbal day) is out of balance. Maybe we need to reduce the amount of science given per contract, or eliminate it entirely. When I get home I'll play with the sliders on the new game screen and see what I can figure out.

4. The contracts themselves need more tweaking. I think I should hit a certain rep level before I get a contract for Mun exploration. I also think that a contract that's going to demand all-new hardware needs to pay for the hardware. It does on the easier settings, but does it on moderate/hard?

I play with Fine Print (I think... I don't actually remember, and I can't check it at the moment.) At any rate, I wish I could tell it to give me contracts of a certain nature. I'd like to request a contract to explore planets, or request more sat launches, or request fewer bases and stations. Taken too far, this would throw the game out of balance again, but if there was a limit of some kind like the number of the requested contracts available at one time I think it would work. Someone else suggested being able to write one's own contracts and have the game give an amount it would pay, which seems like a cool (if complicated to program) idea. I'd like to go to Jool, but I'd like the game to pay me for it. Why can't I approach Goliath, for instance, and say so? They're paying for my Duna trip. Seems like they might want to pay for my Jool mission.

5. Strategies break the game, bad. Science is already easy enough that I've maxed science (and that includes the Near Future nodes with which I play) without ever leaving Kerbin and her moons. Add in a strategy and I could have cut my time in half. Maybe it's just supposed to be there for new players (with which I'm okay), but I think a better-balanced game would negate the need for them.

Don't get me wrong-- I love KSP more than any game I've ever played. I've liked .90 much better than any version I've played (been playing since .19). I've played for countless hours, and have been building bases and stations and going everywhere I can. I want this game to succeed. I just think the science system, especially as it interacts with the contracts and the building advancements, is a bit out of kilter and needs a good going over.

- - - Updated - - -

Another thought: What is the point of increasing scientists' returns with experience if I can get all the science I need for the entire game without getting Bill past two stars? I want a reason to keep sending him on missions and a reason to go land on, and bring back science from, various planets. Otherwise it's just sandbox again. I like sandbox, but if I want to play it I've got a great little button on the start new game screen that lets me do just that. Career mode (and by extension, science mode) needs to be greatly lengthened.

ad1. CommunityTechTree, strongly recommended for the SETI-BalanceMod (link in my signature).

ad2. Squad made the "interesting" decision to make facility progression totally unmoddable.

ad3. ContractScienceModifier, actually a requirement for the SETI-BalanceMod.

ad4. ContractConfigurator contracts, another requirement for the SETI-BalanceMod, a lot of great stuff already, but a lot more to come.

ad5. SaneStrategies, you guessed it, required for the SETI-BalanceMod...

And about the traits, they are also nearly unmoddable, no idea why Squad wants them that way.

[whiterafter]

We need more reputation purposes. Off the top of my head I could tell you where I am in finds and science but I have no clue how much reputation I have.

Outsourced RD is OP, and the first upgrades are too expensive and too massive.

[celem]

I quite like the way the game starts, the building caps mean you have to think carefully about what you design, and lack of cash means you also need to think about what is being dropped along the way. Its quite tricky if you are not particularly good at the game and has probably become the hardest part. The removal of patched conics and manouever nodes means a number of my 'unspoilered' buddies who play can no longer hit either moon until those buildings upgrade, which sucks a lot of early cash away from pad/vab where they would rather put it (as they cant design to save themselves).

If you know how to design and fly the start feels nicely balanced until you pick up the tier 2 nodes, at which point it feels like im back in 0.2x

The only building upgrade which feels like a challenge is vab/pad 1. the starting craft-limits are interesting and meaningful.

Yes, funds are short. But only at 2 points, right at the start and then its the tier 3 science centre that really sucks, you want the top techs but its a huge chunk of cash. For the vast majority of launches you dont need VAB3, though I do need pad 3. (only complex action groups is wanted from vab 3 really). Longterm I dont much worry about it, if you play like the old versions and hoover up all the science with dedicated research missions then yes, sci will be fast, funds slow and you will cap out before the r&D goes to 3. But you barely need to do science anymore, you get so much from contracts whihc come with huge payouts to boot.

90% of my launches have a contract in mind and will go on to perform a utility role or gather a little traditional science. If you just do the cookie-cutter 2000-sci 5-biome minmus landing missions then you will pretty much be forced to set up sci-cash policy really fast. Instead I take the contracts explore minmus, flag minmus and maybe 2-3 temp scans at minmus plus 5-kerbal surface base. Build 5-kerbal lander with thermometer and 2.5kdv, run temp stuff from orbits, land, flag, return for maybe 1.5k sci and well north of a million credits without needing to make 5 landings.

All in all, it makes for a fairly sane progression for the unskilled player, much as science mode before it. If you are good at this game, it will never balance, theres always a way to powergame the system. (Theres no need to leave kerbin, you can max all buildings and the tech tree before a high-speed ballistic D1 duna probe could reach its destination)

Edited February 28, 2015 by celem

[helaeon]

As soon as I had a decent way to get to Minmus and have fuel and a science lab in orbit, it was over. I became god of space at that point. Especially considering how many funds and science Minmus survey contracts are worth, and jumping around Minmus is so easy. Mun contracts should be worth more. Multiple landings are harder (and landings in general), though getting there is faster.

I think some balancing must be done against strategies and contracts along with how much each experiment is worth so, you simply can't get to the end stages without having been to Duna at least. Or I guess the end of the stock tree should be for getting to Duna maybe... At default the beginning seems a bit rough, but once you get in the groove too much science. So much science. So it's not as simple as turning down the science yield setting.

[merendel]

Normal mod is relitively OK although science is a bit too easy to get mostly due to contract rewards cupled with bioms. I tried out hardmode to get a bit more of a challange and got a rather unplesent surprise however. I was expecting half fund/science payouts for contracts and such and got that. I wasnt expecting it to double the cost of building upgrades (I asumed it was more expensive craft) I was siting on a crap ton of science, nearly enough to compleate the tree by the time I scrounged up enough funds for the 6mil pricetag on the T3 science. Even geting to T2 was a bit rough. Wouldnt be so bad if the tech tree wasnt such a disaster but very critical parts are hidden just over the threshold. I was constantly in the state of "I could take better paying missions if I had just this one part but I cant get that part untill I put up 100 sats." I can do alot with low part counts or low weight restrictions but the science center costs more than both buildings combined and alot of things (hello plane parts) are arbitrarily high tech and blocked.

[Superfluous J]

I was constantly in the state of "I could take better paying missions if I had just this one part but I cant get that part untill I put up 100 sats."

While I agree that the price tags are too high and the science points to plentiful in Hard career mode, this is exactly the thing games are supposed to do

[Joonatan1998]

I think they should make it so that the first biome you visit on a planet/moon gives the most science, the next gives 20% less, the next givest 20% less than that...

This would encourage exploration of new places instead of just grinding the mun / minmus

I also think the science from contracts should be minimal or completely removed.

(and the OP strategy should be nerfed to give 0.5% of the science it gives now)

I think buildings having more tiers will solve some of the problems with their high costs.

Default settings are very important, if not for players for reviewers.

[Aik]

Funds are fine, but there's way too much science. If I wanted to play it safe I could probably build up a good amount of funds, but a few disastrous bits of R&D will bring it back down pretty quick. I've never done any boring contracts just to get money.

Technology advances are way too fast though. You can easily launch the first Duna mission you do with nuclear engines or other advanced technology, which is a bit of a shame. I feel you should have to try and scrape through with crappy technology for a bit longer before being able to access that sort of stuff.

[Acet]

I quite liked how the squeeze in funds and part count at the beginning forced me to find the craziest ways to squeeze Dv out of the launch and transit stages just to get a bit more science or launch the smallest possible probe to do satellite contract missions.

In my previous career run I was doing crazy asparagus staging over-engineered ships, while this time around I was sending probes up to do multiple satellite missions using launch stages with a grand-total of 6 parts and at a cost of 11k.

That said, later the whole funding thing becomes grindy, when contracts start requiring things in other planets and moons which have first to be build and launched from Kerbin - requiring game months or even years for the right transfer window and travel time - even while in parallel I'm dealing with short time-frame things like getting science from the Duna system from my Science Station in there and munar bases (with OKS/MKS and ELP), so I end up having to go through some large contortions to gather enough funding for, say, my latest and greatest Minmus base, by sending probes on multi-year missions to Jool.

Frankly I'm tempted to setup one full base with Extraplanetary Launch Pads and Karbonite mining on a low gravity moon in each main planet so that I can fulfil those missions with locally built ships. (*sigh*)

[Herbin]

I like how it currently sits. i turn $ into science and go after the high payout missions. The determining factor for me is always the money. More money = more science how I play. So I don't care if they are wanting me to field test a commode , uf the pay is high enough I do it.

[Superfluous J]

Frankly I'm tempted to setup one full base with Extraplanetary Launch Pads and Karbonite mining on a low gravity moon in each main planet so that I can fulfil those missions with locally built ships. (*sigh*)

Amusingly, this workaround you lament is exactly the strategy I'm excited to get working.