More In-Depth Contracts

[Over-Engineered]

After building Orbital Stations and Land Bases for Contracts these structures are pretty useless, unless you build some other capabilities into them which takes away from your pay from that contract. I would like to see Contracts come up that build on the original Contract. After all our own real world International Space Station was not built in one launch, and requires constant re-supplying, re-fueling, and switching out crew members. Some examples of these Contracts might be:

Add this or that module to a Space Station you have in Orbit.

Resupply your Space Station/Land Base with Snacks.

Switch out Crew Members aboard your Space Station/Land Base.

I think this would add a lot of depth to the current Contracts of this type, and give them a purpose besides orbiting forever uselessly. I am not a programmer, so I have no idea if this is possible in Unity. Any feedback or criticism is welcome.

[tater]

Yes, I agree. The contract system is very meh right now, and all FP did was add more contracts that become as boring as the stock ones.

Contracts/missions certainly need a hook to connect them conditionally. If you've fulfilled contract "5 kerbal station," then offer contract "attach science lab and cupola to 5 kerbal station." (note that the game should see what you actually have named that station, and use THAT name for "5 kerbal station."

I don't know if it is possible, but for planetary bases, I'd like to see a softer definition of components at a base. Instead of a single craft with X parts, and containing Y kerbals, I'd like the ability to have contracts that require landed facilities within some range of the named facility. Say 'Mun Base 1" for the non-creative. So you might then get a contract to add more habitation, and instead of having to dock them together, you need only place the new hab modules within whatever range is specified, say 200m in this case. Note that SOME contracts might require docking parts on the ground, just not all. Then contracts might require adding rovers with certain capabilities to the base, etc.

[nightingale]

Next version of Contract Configurator is going to support a lot of this - specifically planned are:

• Being able to randomly select a station/vessel as a contract objective (that meets certain criteria)
  

... actually, that's it. There's lots more planned, but everything else you mentioned above is already supported, specifically:

• Using a specific vessel from a previous contract as part of a new contract.
  
• Docking a vessel that meets specific criteria to another vessel (ie. a vessel with the new components)
  
• Having specific kerbals at a specific spot (on the station/on Kerbin)
  

There's also a contract pack planned that will use many of these features.... look for all this in the next 2-3 weeks.

[tater]

I need to figure your mod out. I have it, and was a little confused… What would be ideal would be, even if an external program, a contract editor where someone clueless can just pick and choose from pull-downs and generate contract packs. I'd be all over that in a heartbeat (I did an extensive, semi-historical campaign mod for Silent Hunter 4 using their mission editor, for example).

[nightingale]

I need to figure your mod out. I have it, and was a little confused… What would be ideal would be, even if an external program, a contract editor where someone clueless can just pick and choose from pull-downs and generate contract packs. I'd be all over that in a heartbeat (I did an extensive, semi-historical campaign mod for Silent Hunter 4 using their mission editor, for example).

Although not completely out of the question a contract "builder" would be a fair bit of work, that would need:

• Logic for saving parameters/requirements/behaviours to config nodes (right now they can only be read).
  
• GUI for each parameter/requirement/behaviour (or some sort of framework).
  

Which may not seem like much, but that's quite a bit. The problem is that it doesn't take away the hardest parts of building contracts, like understanding the parameters and how to best fit them together. It also doesn't give me personally much benefit, as I'd probably still want to do it via files.

Anyway, if you do want to get into it the wiki is the first place to start. If you have questions, I'm always happy to help, just post on either the contract pack dev thread or main contract configurator thread.

[Over-Engineered]

Next version of Contract Configurator is going to support a lot of this - specifically planned are:

• Being able to randomly select a station/vessel as a contract objective (that meets certain criteria)
  

... actually, that's it. There's lots more planned, but everything else you mentioned above is already supported, specifically:

• Using a specific vessel from a previous contract as part of a new contract.
  
• Docking a vessel that meets specific criteria to another vessel (ie. a vessel with the new components)
  
• Having specific kerbals at a specific spot (on the station/on Kerbin)
  

There's also a contract pack planned that will use many of these features.... look for all this in the next 2-3 weeks.

That sounds awesome, I think it would really help me get back into career mode. Thanks for you info and your work!

[tater]

I'll give it a read---I understand completely that an editor is a huge amount of work, really something squad should do.

[Renegrade]

Add this or that module to a Space Station you have in Orbit.

Resupply your Space Station/Land Base with Snacks.

Switch out Crew Members aboard your Space Station/Land Base.

That would be kinda nice - would add some er, persistence to the station's story, as it were. I approve!

(just one question: Snacks? as in the life support mod?)

[BudgetHedgehog]

Kaspervld did mention this to the devs so they know it's something people want.. I hope they do make it, because at the moment, I just don't feel connected to them. And the ones where it's like 'have a cupola, science lab and space for 10 kerbals on it', there's no way I'm launching that thing in one go, I'd bankrupt myself. So I need to assemble it in orbit but then I always forget which way round I have to dock them for the contract to click.

[KSK]

Completely agree. I don't feel connected to them either and because of that, I'm not really connecting with Career mode as a whole. I feel like I'm lobbing random stuff into space for random companies for no particular reason. Why? Because that's how I make money and science which I need to unlock the next building upgrade, tech node or whatever. There's no overarching reason for any of it, no ongoing narrative (even a very rudimentary one) and it definitely doesn't feel like I'm running a coherent space program. I'm doing stuff because that's the next contract that I'm offered and not because it fits into any sort of progression or overall goal.

I think all the contracts would benefit from Over-Engineered's suggestion, not just the space-station or land-base ones. Give each company it's own little story arc which the player can progress or not as they see fit. Examples:

Probodobodyne. Specialises in satellites. Their story arc starts with launching a basic satellite into a low equatorial orbit, moves on to putting a small constellation of satellites around Kerbin at a given altitude but different inclinations, then moving on to kerbosynchronous satellites or perhaps a set of satellites around the Mun. NASAs Lunar Orbiter program would be a good example to mimic in game - a small constellation of satellites, launched within the same time frame for a defined purpose.

Rockomax. Engine specialists. You'll get a lot of part test contracts from these guys, but again they're linked. You might start with getting a basic 'test this on the launchpad' contract for their shiny new Skipper engine, which progresses on to in-flight tests. If you've done the Skipper tests, you'll be entrusted with testing out their Mainsail engine in due course.

Maybe these two arcs could cross at some point and you get a contract from Rockomax to test a small Rockomax engine as part of a satellite. The contract flavour text mentions a business partnership formed by Rockomax and Probodobodyne to develop new technologies for deep space probes. But give me a reason to care. Give me a sense that these companies have a plan and that you're helping them with that plan. And if I really can't be bothered doing lots of part test contracts - well I know not to bother taking anything from Rockomax. Or as per another suggestion thread, make it so that I can filter out Rockomax contracts.

Alternatively, how about a system of 'Kennedy Contracts'. Contracts for big ambitious goals that you get ludicrously early on but then it's up to you how you set about meeting them. Which technologies do you need in which order? How do you pay for this? Do any of the sub-goals for this contract tie in with contracts that you're picking up from specific companies.

Admittedly, these would work best if Kerbin Construction Time (or a simplified version) was rolled into stock, since otherwise it would be difficult to define a sensible timeframe. "Before this week is out, we shall land a kerbal on the Mun' doesn't really have that air of ambition and purpose to it somehow.

Edited February 23, 2015 by KSK

[Dwight_js]

I find that the biggest problem with contracts as they stand now, is that they define your game in terms of what others want you to do. I always thought that the strength of KSP was the extremely open gameplay that allowed you to build your own story-arc. We've got a great "What did you do in KSP today?" discussion thread, but I don't think we'll get the same enthusiasm for a "what did KSP make you do today?" thread.

I would like the game to limit the materials/resources that I have at my disposal to accomplish goals, but for the most part I would like to set those goals myself, and to receive recognition and reward for accomplishing them. If I choose to shoot for Jool on my second launch, I should get the riches and prestige that I deserve when I get there.

[Over-Engineered]

(just one question: Snacks? as in the life support mod?)

Snacks was just a bad joke, but yes, if you run the life support mod it would be cool to get contracts that worked along side the mod. It would also be cool to have the life support mod in the stock game for hard mode.

Completely agree. I don't feel connected to them either and because of that, I'm not really connecting with Career mode as a whole. I feel like I'm lobbing random stuff into space for random companies for no particular reason. Why? Because that's how I make money and science which I need to unlock the next building upgrade, tech node or whatever. There's no overarching reason for any of it, no ongoing narrative (even a very rudimentary one) and it definitely doesn't feel like I'm running a coherent space program. I'm doing stuff because that's the next contract that I'm offered and not because it fits into any sort of progression or overall goal.

I think all the contracts would benefit from Over-Engineered's suggestion, not just the space-station or land-base ones. Give each company it's own little story arc which the player can progress or not as they see fit. Examples:

Probodobodyne specializes in satellites. Their story arc starts with launching a basic satellite into a low equatorial orbit, moves on to putting a small constellation of satellites around Kerbin at a given altitude but different inclinations, then moving on to kerbosynchronous satellites or perhaps a set of satellites around the Mun. NASAs Lunar Orbiter program would be a good example to mimic in game - a small constellation of satellites, launched within the same time frame for a defined purpose.

Rockomax. Engine specialists. You'll get a lot of part test contracts from these guys, but again they're linked. You might start with getting a basic 'test this on the launchpad' contract for their shiny new Skipper engine, which progresses on to in-flight tests. If you've done the Skipper tests, you'll be entrusted with testing out their Mainsail engine in due course.

Maybe these two arcs could cross at some point and you get a contract from Rockomax to test a small Rockomax engine as part of a satellite. The contract flavour text mentions a business partnership formed by Rockomax and Probodobodyne to develop new technologies for deep space probes. But give me a reason to care. Give me a sense that these companies have a plan and that you're helping them with that plan. And if I really can't be bothered doing lots of part test contracts - well I know not to bother taking anything from Rockomax. Or as per another suggestion thread, make it so that I can filter out Rockomax contracts.

Alternatively, how about a system of 'Kennedy Contracts'. Contracts for big ambitious goals that you get ludicrously early on but then it's up to you how you set about meeting them. Which technologies do you need in which order? How do you pay for this? Do any of the sub-goals for this contract tie in with contracts that you're picking up from specific companies.

I like the idea of each company having their own story arc and their own objectives. That would make career mode much more satisfying for me. Rather than, like you said, lobbing stuff in to space for no apparent reason other than to fulfill a contract that whoever supplied will never mention again. I usually don't even waste crew members on the orbital station/land base contracts, unless I want to do some science while I'm there, as you only have to have a certain capacity for crew and don't actually have to have anyone in the vessel. It would be fine if I next got a contract for transporting crew to and from the vessel.

[tater]

I find that the biggest problem with contracts as they stand now, is that they define your game in terms of what others want you to do. I always thought that the strength of KSP was the extremely open gameplay that allowed you to build your own story-arc. We've got a great "What did you do in KSP today?" discussion thread, but I don't think we'll get the same enthusiasm for a "what did KSP make you do today?" thread.

I would like the game to limit the materials/resources that I have at my disposal to accomplish goals, but for the most part I would like to set those goals myself, and to receive recognition and reward for accomplishing them. If I choose to shoot for Jool on my second launch, I should get the riches and prestige that I deserve when I get there.

This would effectively not be career mode… face it, the entire career system is fubar, imo. I'm not against the player driving the space program, however.

One, separate Programs/Missions from "Contracts." (and "Mission Control" in game is named wrong, it's mission planning/business office as it is, and the tracking station is mission control)

Contracts are parts testing*, and satellite launches almost entirely. Later, I suppose it might be making mining bases for 3d parties. That said, any craft launched for a 3d party… should belong to that 3d party. You cannot reuse them, because you do not own them (though you might get commercial contracts to resupply or repair them). *Note that all idiotic parts testing contracts should be expunged. Only sensible contracts should remain. There can be tests on the Mun… "Test the Mk1 Lander Can for dust infiltration on the Mun." (land, then return it) Test decouplers at altitudes where you'd expect to actually use them, etc.

Programs and Missions WITHIN your own program should Be generated by the player, but I think that sans an entire budgetary and R&D system that makes sense, it likely needs to be thrown at us, but in a very broad way.

All the "Explore" and milestone "contracts" fall within mission/program selection. Those should drive the basic/pure science (which in KSP is pretty much planetary science). Some parts testing, and "spaceflight science" stuff is also within this aegis (stations, and other "man (erm, kerbal) in space" type stuff).

Example Programs the player could be offered (funds would be heavier in advance as "budget," and even some science points might be advanced to develop needed tech (since the (broken) science driving tech paradigm is likey staying)):

Beginning Rocketry (altitude milestones here)

Achieving Orbit (title goal, but might have milestones for unmanned vs manned, science, satellites, reentry, etc).

Orbital Spaceflight (rendezvous, eva, docking, orbital changes, etc.)

Explore the Mun

Explore Minmus

etc.

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing wrong with Snacks! There is no real reason to not turn the entirely of the LS equation down to what mass of consumables needs to be added to the system poet unit time. Waste can be recycled to some level, then removed. Whatever is lost (say 90% efficiency, then you need to add back that 10% to not lose ground). It all comes down to mass. Note that you can easily alter the cfg to have snacks kill. I'm messing with IFLS now, but it's not really dissimilar (we can argue exactly how many kg/time unit additional mass is required per kerbal, but that's debatable among all the LS mods, really).

[Dwight_js]

This would effectively not be career mode…

Of course it would. Real life Space Agencies don't just sit around waiting for some private company to stop by and offer them a contract. Curiosity wasn't commissioned by some random private enterprise who plopped a bag of cash on the table and said "build this for me"; NASA came up with the idea and sought out funding for it. Same goes for Hubble, the Shuttle program, and pretty much the entire early American space program.

I'm not saying that KSP has to mirror the development of NASA. I'm not even saying that the current contracts mechanic should be removed. But the game should accommodate my desire to test the limits of what I can achieve with the tools available at any given stage of my career. Let me suggest a mission goal, offer me the funds to do it, then reward or punish me for my success or failure.

Example Programs the player could be offered (funds would be heavier in advance as "budget," and even some science points might be advanced to develop needed tech (since the (broken) science driving tech paradigm is likey staying)):

Beginning Rocketry (altitude milestones here)

Achieving Orbit (title goal, but might have milestones for unmanned vs manned, science, satellites, reentry, etc).

Orbital Spaceflight (rendezvous, eva, docking, orbital changes, etc.)

Explore the Mun

Explore Minmus

etc.

That I disagree with completely. Why should the player be forced down any particular path? For me, that approach completely flies in the face of what I perceive as the spirit of KSP career mode - "See what you can do with what you've got." Career should set the challenge, but not the agenda.

[tater]

Then play science mode. You seem to have entirely missed the point of my post.

Or are you suggesting a budget system? That is far more complex. You're talking sandbox, but with an annual budget, I suppose. Except time does't matter at all in KSP, so that won't work (it would require something like KCT). A budget system requires something like KCT, and one that is really calibrated to the budget vs time issue. Failures should possibly decrease your budget, or even get you canceled (assuming everyone's program is a national, not commercial program).

If funds, and science = tech unlock is a thing (I'm not fond of the latter, myself), then how else do you assign funds?

Winning funds AFTER doing something is silly, programs are funded in advance (or advance per year). In game terms, that requires picking the mission ahead of time. That they call them "contracts" is indeed dumb. All the pure science stuff should be renamed (as I said above) to "missions" or "programs" which would be assumed to be generated by your own program. Fro what you wish there are finite programs. Science from each body in the game, and bases orbiting or landed on each body in the game (minus landing on Kerbol, obviously). That's it, there is nothing more to KSP, the number of possible "missions" you have can be created from that finite list.

So present the player with that list to chose from as their mission goals in career. Each can have a reasonable time limit to accomplish without penalty (and make the penalty really matter). The player then choses that his program wants to "Explore the Mun" and gets a wad of funds to do so. As I said above, contracts should be exclusively satellite launches, etc. Minor stuff to raise revenues if needed, not the goal of your program (unless you really like doing that, then knock yourself out).

How can career possibly "set the challenge?" There are NO limits without the silly contracts (which I also dislike because they are so badly done). Science is trivial to get in KSP. Without the contract system how would you get funds as your financial limitation? It cannot possibly be an annual budget, as you can unlock the entire tech tree in a couple game-months. If the budget was too restrictive to do that, you'd build a couple rockets, then time warp to next year for more funds?

[AbacusWizard]

I've actually found the space stations I've launched to be extremely useful. The first big projects I made in the current version (once I had the tech for them) were Mun Orbital Command and Minmus Orbital Command, making sure to accept "build station orbiting Mun/Minmus" contracts first so I'd get paid for them. I designed each one to include crew quarters, a science lab, a crew lander, and a probe lander (each with science instruments). Now whenever I get a flag contract, a science-in-space contract, a science-from-surface contract, or a survey contract for Mun or Minmus, I can complete it with little effort and no cost* by sending down one of the landers that's already there.

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, it would be really nice if the contract system had a way to recognize that stations I've already built and generate later contracts that interact with them. I would love to see things like resupply missions, orbital adjustments, attaching new modules, and cycling crew.

* except eventual cost to refill the station's fuel reserves, but I included plenty of extra fuel in the original design and haven't run out yet

[Dwight_js]

I may have missed the point of your post to some degree, but you can't really blame me when I have to decipher sentences like:

If funds, and science = tech unlock is a thing (I'm not fond of the latter, myself), then how else do you assign funds?

Anyway, I partially agree with you, but I think your system of offering a "complete list of finite mission objectives" is backwards. I want to be able to:

1. Specify my own mission parameters, e.g: [destination] [manned/unmanned] [flyby/orbit/land] [transmit/return science] [establish base] [deploy rover] [deploy satellite] etc.

2. Let interested parties bid to fund the mission, and select the best deal.

3. Use the funding to fly the mission.

4. Collect the science and reputation rewards for completing the mission.

The system could calculate funds and reputation rewards based on the player's unlocked tech nodes, state of the KSC buildings, Kerbonaut skill levels, etc.

So in that way, I set my own agenda (where to go and what to do), and the game sets the level of challenge by limiting the tools at my disposal.

[tater]

I'm not averse to a system where you use pulldowns to set targets, but in effect you are doing exactly the possible missions available as a list in my suggestion, it's just less space consuming to have the pull downs.

The whole science = tech advancement paradigm is wrong-headed, however. IN reality, you'd pick a mission goal as a program, and then get funded or not, and if you needed new tech, that would be part of what you were asking for funds for (to research the needed tech).

What interested parties would bid to fund a mission to collect Mun rocks? Why? If an entity wants to pay money for rocks, you'd think they might decide which rocks you collect, right? ("Collect EVA and surface samples from the Kerby's Knob region of the Mun")

In your example above, though, how is it different than ignoring the contracts that you don't like, and taking the one that asks for "Science from Duna orbit" because that;s what you actually want to do?

I'm not really at odd with a completely player-driven space program mission, but I think it requires an entirely different career system, and if the player is going to drive it, why is the tech tree so bizarre? I want to drive my program to the Mun, but I have to collect surface samples from Kerbin to gain the science I need to buy a ladder, lol.

Have tech cost funds to develop, and often also science. So you want a Mun program, and you decide you need certain tech. You spends funds to get what you need, but some tech requires money AND science. Make the science specific, though. Parachutes require atmospheric science or parts testing. Lander cans and legs require some sort of mun surface mission (a probe?) to make sure they won't sink in the dust, etc (what Surveyor was for). The trouble is that the science to tech system we have is likely not going away, so novel career ideas are not really possible, IMO.

[rcp27]

I find that the biggest problem with contracts as they stand now, is that they define your game in terms of what others want you to do. I always thought that the strength of KSP was the extremely open gameplay that allowed you to build your own story-arc. We've got a great "What did you do in KSP today?" discussion thread, but I don't think we'll get the same enthusiasm for a "what did KSP make you do today?" thread.

The way I see it, contracts are not the driver of my space program. I play in career mode in the same way I do in sandbox and science modes. I have my own objectives that I chose to define for myself. The way I see it, contracts are a way of gathering the resource, funds, that I need to support my personal space program goals. If a contract happens to align with my own objectives, that's great, but if there happens not to be a contract associated with it, I'll do it anyway, or perhaps do something else and wait for a relevant contract to come up. If I'm running low on funds, I do a few profitable contracts to earn some cash, before returning to my own personal objectives. I decided fairly early on that I didn't want to be too tied to contracts, so I have set the custom difficulty in order to increase the funds yielded by contracts.

[tater]

The trouble with imagining other systems is that science, tech, budget, facilities, and contracts are all woven together, and touching most any element in a meaningful way means touching all of it. On top of that, the only reward system in the game is unlocking tech right now, and it is so easy to unlock all the tech before you leave kerbin SoI. I'd like to see the end-game fleshed out a little.

I think sort of within the current paradigm (including stuff for 1.0 we know about) they should consider the following:

Have some tech tree or facility items that are unlocked not via science points, but have more complex requirements.

IF you have unlocked some range of tech in the tree, AND you have a base on the Mun that supports XX kerbals AND that base has X ISRU capability, power, etc, THEN it unlocks "Munar facilities." You pay for that (funds), and then within XXX meters of your base you select a spot and it builds a munar facility that is permanent (a tab to start), then others are offered over time that can replace your landed base parts, and eventually allow building some craft in situ, etc. Models would be easy, since they'd be covered with regolith as shielding, anyway, so they are just dirt piles with the odd airlock and maybe window and antenna sticking out.