No no NO! Please sort Career mode out!

[Synapse]

THE KSP CAREER

The KSP career mode has the opportunity to provide a interesting challenge + gameplay element to guide the player through a space-agency progression. At the moment however it is simply a set of arbitrary numbers and constrictions on construction.

Missions – procedural generation provides interesting game play following the ‘completion’ of career mode and to supplement income however should not be the key element of career mode. Remove procedural generation for 50% of missions and have a natural career progression line. Separate out procedural missions from “career†missions so the difference is clear ie. 3 official missions, 5-7 procedural missions per mission screen.

Revamp missions particularly test missions:

1. Test command module when new command modules are unlocked by science by “run test†in LKO or performing a mission “successfully reenter the atmosphere with the command moduleâ€Â.

2. Test engines. Enable a new “Run test†animation for moving parts (engine 30 second thrust and cool down, gears fold and run, parachutes open. Remove pointless test parameters (certain height and speed and location and staging) Exceptions should be the science equipment (test mystery goo on Duna mission, for example)

3. Enable missions to photograph rather than crew report using a IVA camera facility.

4. Implement these missions using a new 3-part exploration mission line

a) Explore phase 1 – transmit scientific data in SOI, attain orbit, perform an EVA report in orbit

Explore phase 2 – photograph a landing site, land probe on body, transmit surface data (can be a suicide trip)

c) Explore phase 3 – plant flag on body, EVA report on surface, collect and return a surface sample (return trip)

Note that all three phases can be completed by a single mission, but encourage slow progression (Eve surface sample mission for example cannot be completed without a return mission) but phase 1 and 2 are relatively easy. Likewise Munar phase 3 is much simpler mission than Duna phase 1. This will literally solve a bunch of progression problems with missions.

New part – to encourage probe reconnaissance create a surface sample drill which can be attached to probes but requires substantial electrical input. Surface sample can be analysed using science module or brought back via automated.

KERBAL EXPERIENCE

Engineers – class is currently defunct. Give additional abilities such as the ability to improve efficiency of batteries and solar panels by performing work on them in space. Create a tether which can be used by engineers for EVA. Higher the engineer skill, the better batteries work and solar panels are more efficient. This will virtually fix the engineer part without resorting to 2000% lame “fix broken parts†aspect of space travel.

Attributes – remove Courage and Stupidity as they are altogether and replace them with intelligence (affects engineering + science), courage (improves craft reactions + stability), agility (improves EVA manoeuvrability and survivability).

PARTS

Parts general - KSP caters to a increasing number of space plane enthusiasts which is damaging to the game as a whole, as KSP fills a niche of space exploration rather than plane constructions. Many players will never unlock or use spaceplane parts so emphasis on them is ill advised.

Propulsion – Either revamp the nuclear engine width or add the option of a fairing...see below

Structural – add a fairing part to encompass both the Nuclear Engine, and potentially an Apollo 11 style landing module. This could be the “jettison†element, simply to fit the mk2 size fuel tanks. At the moment nuclear engines pose an unrealistic design element – length is fine but no reason to have obtuse width requirements to ship design.... please fix this

A Mk 1 Hitchhiker module is essential to allow players to gain experience with their scientists or engineers in the early stage of the game, while a pilot flies. The Mk1 command pod is insufficient for this due to shape and function. Add a mk1 hitchhiker module which can fit in a standard mk1 rocket design.

Science – add a utility for gathering surface samples, a photography unit for photographing from orbit and add science functionality for photographing biomes (to replace EVA report above biomes).

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

I'm sorry, but is this "everyone must play the game the way that I want to play the game"? I can't see any real justifications in the above other than them being your preferences.

[Synapse]

apology accepted

[Hyomoto]

I want to respond with a discussion but it's clear you are just ranting. Some of it is interesting, most of it is opinion and none of it supplies evidence to support your claims that things are broken or don't work. So I'm going to say this instead, the reason career doesn't have a strict progression line is because it is YOUR space program. If I want to fly around and explore Kerbin for science, are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed because you think that going to the Mun should be my first priority? Please, enlighten us with the 'proper' way to play. Apparently those planes I absolutely LOVE building are damaging the game and because you dislike them, no one should have them. I'm guessing you must be a blast at parties.

[Synapse]

Let me engage in discourse then. The reasons are detailed in other threads for example no use for anything other than a pilot for your entire space program. A Mk1 hitchhiker is absolutely necessary.

Why should there be a career progression which forces you into a certain order? There shouldn't. The explore phase 1, 2, 3 simply restructures the mission meaning that if you can't achieve a return trip for example, you still get a mission reward for phase 2, however if you wish to follow the phase 1, 2, 3 format it provides a realistic series of missions charting a certain body. Exploration is currently over for each body way too quickly and the only reason to return for the arbitrary procedural missions. Hence a player may finish the Mun missions with nowhere enough funds or experience to go to Duna, yet the mission progression implies they should.

Likewise, testing parts at the moment is mundane and unoriginal. The attempt to integrate procedural generation is a cop-out for writing good mission content. I'm not saying there's no place for procedural generation, but that it can't be a placeholder for a career mode.

Personally, I'd like to see you be able to choose which body to explore more freely, for example being able to choose any planet from virtually the start. The exception is clearly the opening mission line into space, which is mainly there to assist new players in learning curve.

I don't dislike planes, but the selling point of this game isn't that it's a great plane constructor. Yet 50% of the parts are aimed at these aircraft. Why it has been acceptable for the nuclear engine to fit a mk1 body but not a mk2 for 8 or 9 versions of KSP is beyond me.

[ghpstage]

Some of it is decent.

I think that the scripted 'story' contracts could be improved a great deal by having more of them, right now you don't need any manned missions to complete them all. Though suggesting that you should send a manned mission to orbit before landing a probe is highly dubious!

More importantly that type of contract shouldn't be 'killable' like they are now, where you achieving the next altitude record level robs you of funds and entering SOIs without accepting the contract kills it permanently....

Kerbal roles do need further developing, but the way they currently are suggests that ongoing development was already planned. But improved efficiency on power systems wouldn't make me any more likely to bring an engineer anywhere except on an ion drive craft.

Science – add a utility for gathering surface samples, a photography unit for photographing from orbit and add science functionality for photographing biomes (to replace EVA report above biomes).

Adding stuff that probes can do would be a big improvement in my opinion, they are currently too overwhelmed by the mind boggling power of the MK1 probe in science gathering roles. I agree that photographs would be a better fit for survey missions too.

A Mk 1 Hitchhiker module is essential to allow players to gain experience with their scientists or engineers in the early stage of the game, while a pilot flies. The Mk1 command pod is insufficient for this due to shape and function. Add a mk1 hitchhiker module which can fit in a standard mk1 rocket design

A MK1 hitchhiker module would make sense, but the premise that flying without SAS either can't be done or is unreasonably hard is utter nonsense. Flying a balanced rocket, even to other planets, isn't difficult at all.

[Synapse]

A MK1 hitchhiker module would make sense, but the premise that flying without SAS either can't be done or is unreasonably hard is utter nonsense. Flying a balanced rocket, even to other planets, isn't difficult at all.

That's not the point really. It doesn't make sense to exclude your pilot either; mk1 hitchhikers mean that your pilot can ferry a scientist into LKO or to the Mun, or an engineer to repair landing legs, far earlier in the game without relying on mk2 components. It allows them to gain experience equally with your pilot, as a space team, rather than solo operators.

[tater]

First, excellent post. Career is slapped on without a lot of thought, IMO. The bones are there, but it's like redesigning your kitchen without being able to see "outside the box" and just moving stuff around within the existing footprint. The devs need to be willing to do some demo, and move stuff around a little.

On to the second, addressing the points.

Missions – procedural generation provides interesting game play following the ‘completion’ of career mode and to supplement income however should not be the key element of career mode. Remove procedural generation for 50% of missions and have a natural career progression line. Separate out procedural missions from “career†missions so the difference is clear ie. 3 official missions, 5-7 procedural missions per mission screen.

I like the idea of "official" vs "contract," though it might even be a base career choice at some level (private space firm, vs NASA). Forcing a progression is not strictly required (which order to visit places), but clearly the tech tree is a forced progression, and that progression should actually make sense (which is far from the current tech tree).

Revamp missions particularly test missions:

1. Test command module when new command modules are unlocked by science by “run test†in LKO or performing a mission “successfully reenter the atmosphere with the command moduleâ€Â.

2. Test engines. Enable a new “Run test†animation for moving parts (engine 30 second thrust and cool down, gears fold and run, parachutes open. Remove pointless test parameters (certain height and speed and location and staging) Exceptions should be the science equipment (test mystery goo on Duna mission, for example)

Agree completely. Such tests should also be offered ONCE. In addition, since testing is a way to get stuff ahead of time, make real use of that in the career. Have it harder to unlock stuff, but offer contracts to use the parts when you have not yet unlocked them as "off the shelf." This can be really improved.

3. Enable missions to photograph rather than crew report using a IVA camera facility.

Absolutely. The game needs more science that is not abstracted as "points" to earn, but science that is required to do something you want to do. You need to map out landing sites if you want to land.

4. Implement these missions using a new 3-part exploration mission line

a) Explore phase 1 – transmit scientific data in SOI, attain orbit, perform an EVA report in orbit

Explore phase 2 – photograph a landing site, land probe on body, transmit surface data (can be a suicide trip)

c) Explore phase 3 – plant flag on body, EVA report on surface, collect and return a surface sample (return trip)

Note that all three phases can be completed by a single mission, but encourage slow progression (Eve surface sample mission for example cannot be completed without a return mission) but phase 1 and 2 are relatively easy. Likewise Munar phase 3 is much simpler mission than Duna phase 1. This will literally solve a bunch of progression problems with missions.

Yep. You should need to explore to land. The first manned mission to Mars would not be the first MISSION to Mars at all. By the time men walk there, there will have been dozens of probes/landers/orbiters. KSP need not go that far, and as you say it might be possible to do in one mission (perhaps a role for scientist kerbals, and another role for the lab module?).

KERBAL EXPERIENCE

Engineers – class is currently defunct. Give additional abilities such as the ability to improve efficiency of batteries and solar panels by performing work on them in space. Create a tether which can be used by engineers for EVA. Higher the engineer skill, the better batteries work and solar panels are more efficient. This will virtually fix the engineer part without resorting to 2000% lame “fix broken parts†aspect of space travel.

I'm meh on this idea. Perhaps engineers can construct things in space, lock parts together for orbital construction, etc? I see most tech as pretty self-contained, the time for real engineering is well before liftoff, or if there is a problem. Someone in the forum suggested allowing engineers to disassemble spacecraft, which is cool. Say your lander has a small amount of fuel on the Mun, an engineer might strip off parts to lighten it, allowing takeoff. Any ideas are worth looking at, though.

Attributes – remove Courage and Stupidity as they are altogether and replace them with intelligence (affects engineering + science), courage (improves craft reactions + stability), agility (improves EVA manoeuvrability and survivability).

I already view stupidity as the opposite of what I want, doesn't mother me. Low stupidity = intelligence. Ideally I'd like to see AI kerbals (like MechJeb, only minus the "mech"). Then I could let them actually pilot routine missions (resupply, etc).

Parts general - KSP caters to a increasing number of space plane enthusiasts which is damaging to the game as a whole, as KSP fills a niche of space exploration rather than plane constructions. Many players will never unlock or use spaceplane parts so emphasis on them is ill advised.

Many will disagree with you, but I'm not one of them. I have yet to build any aircraft, and I have no desire to start. I'd rather have an orbital/munar construction yard to build pure spacecraft than spaceplanes. I'd be less down on them if they were less obviously flatly magical than they are in game now.

Propulsion – Either revamp the nuclear engine width or add the option of a fairing...see below

Structural – add a fairing part to encompass both the Nuclear Engine, and potentially an Apollo 11 style landing module. This could be the “jettison†element, simply to fit the mk2 size fuel tanks. At the moment nuclear engines pose an unrealistic design element – length is fine but no reason to have obtuse width requirements to ship design.... please fix this

In general, I'd like to see the stage separators have a procedural control like PF does for just one element. Allow the builder to pick if the fairing will match the diameter of the engine itself, or the part it is attached to. That or have 1.25m decouplers all only make a 1.25m fairing, and 2.5m ones ALWAYS make a 2.5m fairing, etc). So if you have an LV-30 or nuke on a 2.5 m tank, and you use a 2.5m fairing, it will use a 2.5m fairing (I do this with PF already).

A Mk 1 Hitchhiker module is essential to allow players to gain experience with their scientists or engineers in the early stage of the game, while a pilot flies. The Mk1 command pod is insufficient for this due to shape and function. Add a mk1 hitchhiker module which can fit in a standard mk1 rocket design.

That or a 2-man capsule. Either makes sense.

Science – add a utility for gathering surface samples, a photography unit for photographing from orbit and add science functionality for photographing biomes (to replace EVA report above biomes).

Yeah, probes need love.