A new take on Career?

[Wallygator]

Having played career mode through to completion for the past couple of versions I find that after completing the tech tree, I am now forced into taking on a multitude of senseless contracts in order to fund a deeper space exploration program. This has caused me to reconsider my perspective on Career.

So... a suggestion - primarily from the perspective that subcontractors should not drive the space program but vice versa...

It seems (to me) to be more sensible if the player's space program was the driver for the various agencies to build and test components, establish a kerbalnaut cadre, and creating missions. The player would be provided with an annual budget (increased or decreased based on reputation). The annual funds available would be spent in a several ways:

1) Research - Spending science to unlock "the possibility" of specific components (putting items onto the tech tree) - unlocking a component puts it onto the development tree in the order that a player researched it. The specific subcontractor which the player chooses to do the research will affect the place and the cost as to where the component will appear in the tech tree. This would enable a creative and non-deterministic tech tree based on how the player spends science points and which subcontractor they invest in. Subcontractors (the existing agencies) would need to configured with specialities, efficiency ratings, etc. The intention would be that a player spends points to achieve a research result. Spending a small amount might result in a component which shows up much later in the tree or is perhaps a failed research effort causing the player to invest again. Obviously at the beginning of a career a player would be required to run a few missions to get enough science to conduct initial research.

Note: I think there could be incredible synergy here if combined with the new tech tree suggestions seen upstairs in the sticky...) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99521-A-more-intuitive-tech-tree

2) Development - Spending funds to develop a specific component on the tech tree - once a component has been researched it is now necessary to develop it into a usable item. The player would be required to spend funds with agencies to create the item and make it available in the VAB. How much is spent and which agency is selected would determine how long it would take to appear in the VAB menu and how much it would cost. It might be that additional science and funds could be spent to influence this.

Now... It would be necessary for "Fine Print" to slightly modified. It would not generate testing contracts until the player had conducted the necessary research and commissioned a company (vie development funds) to manufacture a specific part. Once these were done, then a testing contract would be presented to the player. They player would need to complete the test successfully for the part to appear in the VAB on a permanent basis. A failed test would require more development funds to release another part for test. Depending on the "level" of a part there might be more that one testing contract required. For example, a Nerva engine might need to short testing in orbit and in long tested in deep space.

3) Missions - Specific funds are reserved to conduct missions - the idea here is that the player would be required to undertake the missions which the player selects. These missions would be planned in the prior annual cycle. If they are not undertaken it would have an negative effect on the next annual budget. if you succeed in achieving your planned missions you gain rep and therefore more funding for the next cycle.

Here "Fine Print" could continue to operate nearly the same way. Except instead of the missions giving funds, the player would need to spend funds from whatever budget cycle in which they want the mission to occur. The only science provided would be what they player recovers. Rep should continue to operate as designed.

4) Training - An annual training budget gradually increases the level of kerbals - the player could choose how much funding is applied to pilot, engineer or science training. Kerbals who are hired would automatically be enrolled. Each annual cycle yields improvement. If you lose a Kerbal who has had 5 years of training then you lose that training investment along with a huge chunk of reputation (based on how manny missions he/her had undertaken). It will take time and money to get another kerbal to the same level. The current way kerbels gain experience points would go away. Also,if you time warped just to get kerbals trained up, then you would not be running missions - so your rep will be gently falling along with your annual funding.

5) Program capability (Building) upgrades - Spending funds to upgrade buildings represents improving ground based programs and capabilities. This dynamic would remain very similar (if not exactly the same) as it is now.

Once you get to point where the tech tree it completed, and your building upgrades (ground programs) are complete, then you are then spending funds to complete planned missions each year and to keep your kerbels trained. If you can continue to meet your mission plans without losing kerbals you can likely continue on with even wilder mission plans. If you start failing to meet mission objectives then your program will gradually be starved of funding. When the kerbal government sets your funding at Zero then "game over".

Reputation would need to change also. Launches should generate rep but it might need more of a half-life. Your rep level drives funding so it need to go up and down based on the programs plans, activities and achievements. I would require a more dynamic model than what currently exists.

This is just a thought. A proposal. I expect many of you might think its too far off from the current paradigm and reject it. Others might see it as a fresh take on the current system.

Now, please discuss.

Regards,

Wally.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Wallygator
Added a 5th topic and a few corrections and comments on fine print

[TheShadow1138]

I think these are all good ideas. I too have considered what benefits there would be to career mode if there was a budget system in which you received funds for your program at the beginning of a year, or a certain period of time.

Just to make sure I'm understanding the first two steps, the research step would be deciding what showed up in the various nodes in the tech tree at the beginning of the next cycle, while the development step would be the act of selecting the various nodes. In the development step you have suggested a "development time" so that after you've selected the node it will take time for the part to show up in the VAB/SPH. I think it would be better if once you've selected the node, the parts should appear immediately as they do now, otherwise you may get a lot of people just time warping ahead to get the parts. We'd still have to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay, but I would support this type of addition to career mode.

[tater]

I like this. The current paradigm of "do whatever you like" with "here, take money to do this dumb thing" nature of contracts is not me "steering" the program the way I want… everything gets unlocked so quickly there is no sense of making a choice for a program goal, then working towards it.

[Wallygator]

I think these are all good ideas. I too have considered what benefits there would be to career mode if there was a budget system in which you received funds for your program at the beginning of a year, or a certain period of time.

Just to make sure I'm understanding the first two steps, the research step would be deciding what showed up in the various nodes in the tech tree at the beginning of the next cycle, while the development step would be the act of selecting the various nodes. In the development step you have suggested a "development time" so that after you've selected the node it will take time for the part to show up in the VAB/SPH. I think it would be better if once you've selected the node, the parts should appear immediately as they do now, otherwise you may get a lot of people just time warping ahead to get the parts. We'd still have to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay, but I would support this type of addition to career mode.

Yes you are correct. From my perspective using time warp would be fine and wouldn't break the game or the career dynamic at all.

NOTE: I added another topic which covers the upgradable buildings bit, updated the post to cover changes to fine print, and changed a bit of grammar for clarification.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Wallygator

[TheShadow1138]

Yes you are correct. From my perspective using time warp would be fine and wouldn't break the game or the career dynamic at all.

NOTE: I added another topic which covers the upgradable buildings bit, updated the post to cover changes to fine print, and changed a bit of grammar for clarification.

Now that I think about it, agree that using time warp wouldn't break the dynamic. We would probably have to account for the possibility of someone anxious to get a new part accidentally time warping through a contract's expiration time by dropping you out of time warp a a predetermined amount of time before the contract expires. This amount of time could either be hard coded or user-defined, and perhaps pop up a window letting you know what contract is about to expire. Just an idea.

[Wallygator]

Strange that there are no further comments on this.

Maybe its too much text. Sorry for that. I did try to organise the thought clearly.

[tater]

People don't seem to think outside the box.

I also think the base system is unlikely to change, sadly.