Why I am not enjoying KSP right now.

[klgraham1013]

The main problem about career and science modes is they are designed for new players.

This is patently wrong and I wish people would stop saying it. If it were true, the game would at least make an effort to teach the player something, yet it does nothing of the sort. A contract system based on the new player would introduce concepts such as gravity turns and how atmospheric pressure affects your ascent. Science mode wouldn't have a tech tree with parts scattered in such an arbitrary fashion.

I hope, one day, career will be helpful to new players. Today is not that day.

Edited January 2, 2015 by klgraham1013
grammer

[Greep]

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

I think I was a bit too snarky there. My point is, exactly what could possibly entertain an experienced player better than the forum challenges? If they make harder more interesting procedural contracts, devoted their entire time on this, they'd still suck compared to ones people craft by hand.

Edit: Back to the OP, I honestly you can't go too wrong by just picking the lowest tier, then cheapest building in lowest tier every time. It actually works out somewhat that way. Personally I choose launchpad, mission control, tracking, VAB, research, launchpad again, then in credit order.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Greep

[Dreamixpl]

If they make harder more interesting procedural contracts, devoted their entire time on this, they'd still suck compared to ones people craft by hand.

The main problem for experienced players is not contracts, but no more content. I ask, how much gameplay changed in past months (two years maybe?)? Its still KSP it was, just with some new additions that doesnt really change gameplay.

Challenges? Like flying to Duna without manevuer nodes. Done that, on planets update (0.18? dont remember). Like flying to mun without map view? Done that, when we havent got landing gears (0.7? 8? 9?). Like another low parts challenge, but with other body to visit? Or another challenge that requires very good pc? Or challenge thats impossible, or not fun like walk aroung Kerbin? Or basically 90% challenges like ones i mentioned, on challenge subforum?

Challenges/Contracts is now what we need. We need more ways to play KSP. We need something new, like new planets were, in 0.18 (?). Now we can install new planets in mods (Krag and his planet factory). KSP development should head way, that can't be done with mods (part mods, plugins) or community (contracts, challenges), like adding procedural generated galaxy, with different random planets. This could add infinite possibilities, with mods for different ways to generate galaxies or planets. Or making KSP's 64 bit mode stable (or loading things [ex. parts] when they are needed), this could also add infinite posibilities, no memory restrictions, imagine ultra graphics, or detailed planets, with landscapes different on every corner of the map. And we have career mode, that should be added after final, final version of the game, I feel like its just wasting developement time and resources on this.

And dont tell me its still alpha/beta, its bad excuse. When game is in developement for years, its not normal game developing, with stages like alpha/beta/final product, its a game thats in constant developement (cant name it, cant find a word).

But thats just me. I still love KSP and Squad.

[juanml82]

I think career has become too much of a grind. I've started a new game on normal when 0.90 was released. I first thought I'd like upgradeable buildings. But they came with stuff like no maneuver nodes, or counting non retractable ladders, solar panels and batteries towards the very limited part count.

So you can upgrade the buildings to remove those limitations. Which means I need to do satellite contracts, which I don't care about, over and over again to get the funds to do the stuff I'd like to do. Ok, you can balance or cheat that by playing with huge funds, making it sort of a "science mode with contracts"

But we also got kerbal experience. Which, instead of adding to the base game, it removes. Previously, if I wanted to make a permanent base which included some rover/utility vehicle or use rovers as general purpose landers, any kerbal could fix it's wheels when they broke. Now I need to gather engineer kerbals and send them into a tour through Kerbin's moons and just outside Kerbin's SOI so I can reliable use rovers. And I need to repeat that over and over for every mission in which I want an engineer.

And at that point I'm no longer playing for fun. I'm just doing repetitive chores in order to launch the missions I really want to play. How is that fun, I have no idea.

[tater]

It's important to also realize that after what seems like a lot of grinding, I have almost everything upgraded/unlocked 100%, and my space program is under 3 months old. LOL.

[Sof]

The levelling up system for Kerbals is far too arbitrary. How does planting a flag on Minmus teach someone how to fix a rover wheel?

Did they have no training at all before being flung into space?

I like the fact that Kerbals have different "jobs" now, but I don't like the restrictive way it limits you before they've levelled up. Just make them good at their respective job from the start, and simply have individual Kerbal reputation.

[BDelacroix]

The changes seem interesting. I ran into an issue with my small station designs in that apparently there are is no SAS on some objects that used to have it OR my old version kerbals are all not able to activate stability. I suspect they were assigned duties that weren't a pilot so that makes it a bit tough, they were already out there in space. They'll have to just make due until I can get a professional there.

On the subject of the contracts. I like that there is more variety, what perplexes me is I have to delete many of them because they ask for the impossible. Not just the "place yet another station/structure around/on a far off planet" which is annoying, but things like, send a probe to eve with a time limit of 1 day, or test this device on some moon of jool, in 5 days.

None of that is going to happen unless I just keep a collection of parts hanging around in orbits to assemble just in case I need them.

[SilentWindOfDoom]

I quickly installed "NoMoreGrind" after i found out how ridiculously expensive the building upgrades were in practice. I think it is a pretty bad mechanic overall, not the making of money, but having to spend 3 mil on the VAB? HAH! No thank you, I'm not going to grind dumb "test x while y provided you z as well" just to unlock buildings I feel i should already have.

Now i get to pick the fun contracts, make money, get science, making meaningful progress with every large project. I'm having a lot of fun with it.

[Jiman]

I think career mode feels way to serious for the type of game this is. It doesn't allow for any experimentation and if you make a single mistake at any point, you either have to revert back or start a new game if you are unable to revert.

I understand this maybe a balancing issue, however it is an issue one must bring up.

Should I not be able to experiment in career mode while playing the game?

[Bill Phil]

Removed

It's easy to remember...

Wasdqe is based on the navball. Look at the navball and think how aircraft in sims are piloted.

Edited January 4, 2015 by sal_vager

[juanml82]

Removed

You need to guide yourself with the navball. Usually, that's good enough. However, if you have a rover capable of landing and taking off on its own, landers attached upside down and other unconventional way to place command pods, that's not going to work. So yes, some sort of gizmo type of overlay indicating where are the keys going to move you seems like a good idea.

Edited January 4, 2015 by sal_vager

[Tw1]

I also think the pointlessness of some contacts is a negative. Setting up stations and bases might be more meaningful if they had a reason to be there- something like the research system I wrote about in my blog.

Just plonking them there is a bit odd, but if the game had a simple life support system, sustaining a station over time, getting gradual payments, could be a beter challange.

The problem with contracts is that you will eventually always grind one or more missions just to get the missing funds for mission XY - which will never be fun compared to the fluid gameplay you got with lets say kethane.

_snip-

And it doesnt stop there. Want to optimize the process? How about one of those SSTOs? You build prototypes and take them on test-runs. Everytime you swap that crane on minmus for another, you may have to construct another launchvehicle again. Not enough Vespene- Energy? Make another Solar Powerplant - maybe with enough ground-clearance for your vehicles.

It never ends. Theres always something you can do whereas missions repeat rather quickly and get more boring everytime you accept one of the same type.

I agree, this is a problem with the way career mode is being developed. It's too much like the finiitness of BARIS, where they could pursue a continuos management style, like in simcity.

[Sof]

On the subject of the contracts. I like that there is more variety, what perplexes me is I have to delete many of them because they ask for the impossible. Not just the "place yet another station/structure around/on a far off planet" which is annoying, but things like, send a probe to eve with a time limit of 1 day, or test this device on some moon of jool, in 5 days.

None of that is going to happen unless I just keep a collection of parts hanging around in orbits to assemble just in case I need them.

You're probably looking at when the offer expires, not the deadline. Most contracts only hang about in the contract building on offer for a few days, but they'll have deadlines to actually complete the mission that last for several years. (I don't recall seeing one that is less that 4yrs to complete).

Once you accept the mission, you have years to complete it. It is only the offer that lasts a few days.

The missions I find impossible are the ones that tell you to put a satellite in orbit around a body, in such a way that it will intercept a moon. I got one contract telling me to put a satellite in retrograde orbit around Kerbin which followed the mun's orbit exactly. The only way that could be possible is if I hadn't upgraded to see patched conics, because it was always going to hit the mun within 1 orbit.

[StrandedonEarth]

If you want more funding, especially on hard mode, try the Science Funding mod. It gives funding (default 2k per science point) for every science report that is transmitted or returned to KSC. More reasons to do science!

[LethalDose]

For me it's not about the grind itself, it's about how useless some missions are.

I usually try to get the best out of them, for example if I have to send up a satellite for a mission, I strap on a RADAR and a Spectrometer from SCANSat to make it a bit useful for future missions.

But even if you say "eh, I can keep my orbital station as a refueling relay", it justifies ONE station to be kept alive around a planet, two maybe, not a freaking dozen.

And I know that the contracts are randomly generated, but I still think it needs a bit of tweaking.

You don't have to keep them in orbit, you can just de-orbit them when you're done with them. Maybe even make them recoverable. The russians launched, what... 8 stations successfully (I'm using the term a bit loosely) between 1970 and 1990.

Can we please stop saying "If you dont like it, then leave it"?

This is like saying "Well if you dont like how I cook, we have to divorce".

The game is not getting better that way and I think Ashworth's critic is well explained.

I think you're comparison is a bit hyperbolic. It's impossible to make the career mode everything to everybody. At least SQUAD realized this, and kept other game options available for those who wanted them. The OP clearly states they dislike the complexity of funds and rep, and the "science" mode removes those from the game. Suggesting they play science mode is a perfectly valid comment.