Why I am not enjoying KSP right now.

[DBT85]

I've not played with the contracts enough to know if this is there or not, but when using things like Remote Tech and Scansat it would be nice if you were offered those contracts to actually flesh out your solar system properly rather than just random "build a satellite and put it in this orbit" type stuff.

[Kerbal007]

Spinomonkey and Tater, thank you forcyour comments I whole heartedly agree, and to everyone else also forcthe constructive comments and suggestions for improving my game whilst it continues to be polished. If time permits this will be a good research point to use in a report to submit my thoughts. I am working long hrs and on a train right now so forgive the lack of feedback whilst I mull thibgs over do continue to comment tho.

I would love to see satts be of more use maybe passive improvements and upgrading of parts etc. Thanks lads and lassies

[Wyre311]

Just use sandbox to train on what you have available in career mode and you got it down

[X-SR71]

If you dont like carreer then go play Science or Sandbox. KSP is updated and there are many new things to get accomodated, so of course it is hard at the begining.

When you first install a new single-player game, do you go straight to sandbox? For me at least, sandbox ruins the experience of unlocking better and more advanced parts. It spoils the experience of advancing the tech tree.

I recently gifted KSP to a friend who was completely lost at the beginning. I would not tell him to try sandbox first - actually, I believe career is more subtle in introducing a new player to the game, given the limited number of parts.

What I do find lacking is some direction in the beginning. New players often start a new career when playing the game the first time. I think there should be only a couple of hardcoded contracts available to teach new players the basics and give a sense of progression in the beginning. Kind of a simple tutorial embedded in carreer mode.

KSP hasn't been oficially released yet, right? Stop thinking as a experienced player for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of a new player. When I first started a new beta career, a rescue contract showed up and I didn't even have flight plan unlocked. I bet you a new player would throw KSP in the trash bin out of frustration if he had to rendezvous with an orbiting kerbal without any real clue or visual indications to do so.

[MarvinKitFox]

I bet you a new player would throw KSP in the trash bin out of frustration if he had to rendezvous with an orbiting kerbal without any real clue or visual indications to do so.

You DO realize that you are not required to accept all contracts?

Just as in life you are not required to attempt every challenge, every dare you encounter.

In KSP, as in life, you should exercise your own discretion as to what is easy, what is difficult, and what is just not worth the effort.

A newbie that takes on an orbital rescue mission when he has not even left that atmosphere, *deserves* to suffer for his stupidity! For the same reason that a newbie athlete that enters the Olympics in his first year in a sport, deserves to fail miserably.

[Janos1986]

I've not played with the contracts enough to know if this is there or not, but when using things like Remote Tech and Scansat it would be nice if you were offered those contracts to actually flesh out your solar system properly rather than just random "build a satellite and put it in this orbit" type stuff.

There is a contract customizer in the mods with a built-in compatibility with ScanSAT.

Mission Controller 2 also allows for ScanSAT and Karbonite contracts, if I'm not mistaken.

[lyndonguitar]

It needs better planning and contract management. I hope you can make a your currently active contracts into a list/checklist so you can go on from there and really have a set list of goals. Sometimes it's hard to manage these contracts and you end up mixing them up

Me I resort to spreadsheets to manage my space program

[spinomonkey]

I agree- though the last update helped in getting new people a bit more acquainted to the game, there's still a long ways to go. A simple management system in the contracts would help. Not sure who said it- but I also tend to agree that early contracts should act as a sort of 'tutorial' for getting new players headed in the right direction. Old players could ignore them obviously, but to new players it may prove invaluable.

[obi_juan]

Is always the same, some people hate the changes, and some people love them.

I hate the contracts as were introduce in the last version, So I play several moths on SandBox mode... But now with these new contracts...

Build a Outpost in Minmus ~600k for it... I will do. (A launch pad with it)

Build a New Outpost in Minmus ~300k for it... Perfect I will put only 50m away of the first one to give energy to it.

Now I am waiting the next ones to construct the extraction and refining part of the outpost.

You don't need to take all the contracts that the computer offer to you, only the ones that give you fun.

For example, with this version I almost don't take any contract that asking for test a new part.

Edited December 30, 2014 by obi_juan
change "al" to "all" (my horrible english)

[tater]

Now that they have added the new contracts, they need to tweak them.

1. The visual observation, and indeed most all the Kerbin missions as written are sort of absurd. I can land a capsule in the idle of nowhere, and do the required contract, which is really complicated often, but then I hit "recover" and apparently kerbals drive up, fly a helo in, or whatever to recover my craft. Could I just bring the instruments with the recovery vehicle and save the trouble of a rocket launch?

I'm fine with Kerbin science missions, but they need to make sense. Place a satellite with at a certain (unlocked for mission) science instrument in a low polar orbit, for example. There are not many that require spaceflight.

2. They need more novel rescue missions.

3. Contracts need much shorter periods to fulfill them, and there needs to be a penalty for not taking contracts at a certain point. So if you dismiss a contract without ever accepting it, you lose rep, for example. Rep would impact what kids of contracts you get. Constantly refuse contracts seeking better ones would reduce rep, and result in worse contracts after a while. A strategy at the admin office might allow you to dismiss more contracts without penalty in exchange for money, whatever ("Picky" contract acceptance). First the really lousy contracts need to be mitigated/dumped, though (test a jet engine on Minmus or stuff like that). You'd be allowed a certain number of dismissals per unit time, "free," but at some point you need to take what is offered, or lose rep.

4. Some contracts linked to good launch windows. "Launch a Duna mission between days 213 and 253." Success would be upon gaining science near Duna, perhaps, the date is just to let the player know when a low-energy launch window is.

5. Better part testing contracts that make sense. Lander company wants its landercan on the Mun. As others have suggested, variable returns based upon getting within X% of mission requirements for a test. So you have a chute contract, and if you miss the velocity by X%, your reward is decreased until you are so far out the reward becomes 0, or the failure penalty. Slop to make those missions less tedious, particularly if there is a penalty for not taking contracts in the first place.

[InF3RNo]

I personally like another layer of difficulty that motivates a game without mods. But I know I will end playing science sandbox with mining and making bases in outer space and on moons.

[TonyC]

Hmm.. I see your point.

I tried a few times to play career, but I usually become so obsessed over finishing 5 missions in a single launch I stop playing it.

I prefer playing sandbox with loads and loads of mods.

[Borsek]

DEorbit and or get the stations back to kerbin, once the contract is completed, there is no need for you to keep the station there. I also suggest stagerecovery mod for making the game easier on your funds, and so it's worth putting chutes on the SRBs and the like.

[LadyAthena]

No offense, but I browse these forums though I don't usually post, and I can't for the life of me ever understand why a person needs to come and complain about something being too "grindy" or a "balancing act". When they literally have 10x more options to fine tune the settings how they want than any other game.

You can fine tune the options, fine tune the income, science, reputation gains, You can fine tune if you need to buy things after researching, and a multitude of other things. If you still need to complain after all this, then you're simply complaining for complaining sake and that's not doing anyone any good. You have 100 ways to sunday to customize your game. Don't like the idea of needing credits at all? Play Science mode, it's basically Campaign without the income or Rep.. Don't like that? Play Sandbox.

You literally have every possibility a person could want right at your fingertips. Please use it and stop complaining.

[tater]

No offense, but I browse these forums though I don't usually post, and I can't for the life of me ever understand why a person needs to come and complain about something being too "grindy" or a "balancing act". When they literally have 10x more options to fine tune the settings how they want than any other game.

You can fine tune the options, fine tune the income, science, reputation gains, You can fine tune if you need to buy things after researching, and a multitude of other things. If you still need to complain after all this, then you're simply complaining for complaining sake and that's not doing anyone any good. You have 100 ways to sunday to customize your game. Don't like the idea of needing credits at all? Play Science mode, it's basically Campaign without the income or Rep.. Don't like that? Play Sandbox.

You literally have every possibility a person could want right at your fingertips. Please use it and stop complaining.

Dozens of options for adjusting the grind doesn't change the quality of the experience, just the quantity of the grind. The game is now beta, and the point of commentary is to help the devs see where they can improve things. The career needs some qualitative changes, clearly.

I don't see "grind" as that much of an issue until you get to supposedly "hard" difficulty levels (in normal the game throws money/science at you faster than you can use it, I have almost everything unlocked/upgraded in a test 0.90 campaign on Y1, day 67). On hard it becomes grinding without actually becoming harder to play (no nodes being an exception, but one that makes no sense in that early flights effectively had the astronaut as a passenger, and the flight preplanned to the second before it ever launched).

Actual difficulty changes that are qualitative would include chances for failure (experimental parts failing?), life support (which instantly puts time limits on every manned flight), and possibly atmospheric effects (having reentry have a non-zero chance of death, unlike stock). There are others we could think of, I'm sure.

[SAI Peregrinus]

Contracts are NOT missions. Part of the point of that is to decline the bad ones. It's the minigame of evaluating whether the contract is worth taking.

[TK421d]

when the contract format came out, i was in love. for about a week. it didnt even take me a day to realize i couldnt stand the newest version.

i used to play science, and would enjoy the grind, and always strove to get 100% science from all available sources. but eagerly anticipated a contract system, but when it arrived it was just... wrong.

"hey launch a rocket but dont light off your heavy srb untill you're almost in orbit! oh, but only when goin XXX kph." or other equally absurd tasks, which results in hundreds of hours worth of gameplay that NEVER LEAVES KERBIN.

granted contracts have evolved and gotten better to a degree, but the system is way too rewarding for way too little done, and does not (IMO) give any feeling of satisfaction.

i actually only play in sandbox now, usually with a spreadsheet of my own creation for tasks/science.

i feel like career and science mode need to be integrated together, with a much more organized goal-oreinted structure, before more become disinterested. there's a lot of potential, i just hope they come up with something good.

[Dreamixpl]

The main problem about career and science modes is they are designed for new players. When you actually learn how to do things better, and learn how to launch payloads to space efficiently (bad launches cost funds). When you are very good, or old player, you rarely waste money. Im playing KSP like you, I set my goals and even document my missions, when playing with remote tech and life support mods. I think Squad should focus on game content, not career, I played KSP even before it was costing money, so visitng Laythe is boring. I have 100 MB of additional bodies in Kerbol System, two more gas giants with muns, and my Gamedata folder is weighting 2,12 GB (playing with opengl). I just wish 64 bit KSP would be stable like 32 bit.

[zekes]

Don't get me wrong, I still love KSP as a game but as I play I think to myself that contracts, earning rep and $ is just too much of a complicated balancing act and very hard to grasp. I feel that as I run my space program a cannot make informed decisions as to whether I am being inefficient or not and it bugs me. Yes sure I can watch a 20min video if there is one on understanding this but it shouldn't be that way. I dont feel tgat it is clearly explained enough in game. I woule love to know how kerbalnauts or kerbalnots are finding it ? I am not overly active on here so my concern may be out of place or really wrong. I sit here playing wondering things like "because I spent alot on upgrading my launchpad is this going to create a harder game later on whilst I try to make the funds back?" I cant see a balance or natural or in my special needs case obvious progression options :s

Concerned Space program director.

Play sandbox, then, have fun!

[tater]

Play sandbox, then, have fun!

"The career system is not well thought out, so play sandbox. Have fun!" ?

Wouldn't it be better to have a career mode that is actually good?

Yes, we all know sandbox is available. Some people LIKE the idea of a career mode with some sort of limitations/goals/etc that is not predicated on ridiculous contracts, with no real "big picture." I'm open to the idea that such a thing is outside the scope of the game, but the devs clearly want a campaign game. IMHO, they should consider an AI/NPC competing space program on the other side of Kerbin as a foil for the players. This other program is the source of the "rescue kerbal" missions. You'd find their stations on orbit, and perhaps be given a Mun contract with a time limit because you need to beat the other program. Something like that would flesh out the career game, and some contracts could be more focused on this space race. At some point perhaps cooperative missions (resupply Kerbanov station as a goodwill mission, etc).

Anyway, the career mode could use some lateral thinking, IMO.

Edited January 2, 2015 by tater

[Greep]

The main problem about career and science modes is they are designed for new players. When you actually learn how to do things better, and learn how to launch payloads to space efficiently (bad launches cost funds). When you are very good, or old player, you rarely waste money. Im playing KSP like you, I set my goals and even document my missions, when playing with remote tech and life support mods. I think Squad should focus on game content, not career, I played KSP even before it was costing money, so visitng Laythe is boring. I have 100 MB of additional bodies in Kerbol System, two more gas giants with muns, and my Gamedata folder is weighting 2,12 GB (playing with opengl). I just wish 64 bit KSP would be stable like 32 bit.

Well, SHOULDN'T career mode be made for new players? I mean... experts already have a pretty good contract system:

Objective 1: Open web browser

Objective 2: Navigate to ksp forum's challenge subforum

Behold! Hand-tailored challenging content! A marvel of game design. In all seriousness, it's not like the game is ever going to have anything like the jool-5 challenge. Open ended games are pretty much made for mods and self-imposed challenges.

[tater]

For replay, career would ideally randomize the Kerbol system enough that you'd have to consider new designs with a new career (stock system would always be an option, too, obviously). The planets would even change enough that designs for the stock Duna might not work the same for the new career (more/less atmosphere, different mass planet, etc). Then the game could hide data from players without doing "science" to get it. Duna… looks like Percival Lowell drawings, until you orbit a probe and can map it, etc. That would be fun, challenging, and self-contained. If the system gen had a "seed," then players could share novel system layouts. Perhaps they develop 20+ planets, and as many moons, and it selects 5-7 planets, and X moons per planet, so you might only see some worlds rarely.

[Jouni]

I don't see "grind" as that much of an issue until you get to supposedly "hard" difficulty levels (in normal the game throws money/science at you faster than you can use it, I have almost everything unlocked/upgraded in a test 0.90 campaign on Y1, day 67). On hard it becomes grinding without actually becoming harder to play (no nodes being an exception, but one that makes no sense in that early flights effectively had the astronaut as a passenger, and the flight preplanned to the second before it ever launched).

I haven't tried playing the career mode on any other difficulty level than "moderate", but in my experience the necessity to grind money only becomes an issue, if the player first chooses to grind science. Surely there are many biomes everywhere, but you don't have to visit them. You don't have to launch all the instruments you have developed on each mission, and you don't have to spam crew reports and EVA reports either.

Contracts already provide you with most of the science points you need, especially if you augment them with a few reasonable crew reports, EVA reports, and surface samples. After each mission, you can unlock a couple of tech tree nodes, allowing you to build something different for the next mission. If you pick your contracts well, you'll gain science and money roughly at the same pace, allowing you to upgrade the facilities when you need them.

[tater]

Yeah, I agree.

People forget the point of a "campaign" game, I think. I will use military games as an example, because I play many of those. You can play PvP "deathmatch," by the point of a "campaign" is to create novel encounters that are not "balanced."

<edit for time to type>

Take Silent Hunter 4. The point of the campaign is to present the player with interesting encounters. It's early war, most of your fish are failing to detonate… you were in shallow water and got depth charged, then several days later on the way home you stumble across a carrier with just a few torpedoes left, and destroyers all over. It's the combination of all the campaign events that turn this into a challenge that is not the same as setting up an encounter with a CV as a "scenario" (sorta like sandbox).

People who "get it" will understand what I mean.

Edited January 2, 2015 by tater

[Dreamixpl]

Objective 1: Open web browser

Objective 2: Navigate to ksp forum's challenge subforum

Play sandbox, then, have fun!

If career is bad, not playing is not a solution, it is must (cant find better word).