Contracts and Administration Strategies

[tater]

How about the "strategies" actually become strategies, instead?

I think of strategies as the overreaching goals of the program. Is the program to be a SpaceX and be a transportation service for anyone with a checkbook… up to a certain point, then switch to being something else, say? Or is it to be NASA, and only design missions for science, but have to survive with other people's money?

A key variable is missing in KSP, though, TIME. If something like KCT was in game, then a strategy might be to be a "national" program, and try to operate within a budget. Commercial contracts would be for additional funds. I never use any strategies at all right now, ever, and I play mostly career (even with RSS configs, I have not played in a stock sized kerbol system in a while, if I do so in career, the entire tree is unlocked in a ridiculously short time period, even on harder "hard."

[basic.syntax]

FYI (link to post),

all current 'Science from X' and 'Build Base on X' etc contracts are locked until you actually encounter X. Not necessarily land, just enter the SoI, but I'm hoping Squad are adding that additional requirement - no way I'm going to attempt a base on Moho when I only crashed a fuel-less probe into the surface at 400m/s. So yeah, you'll only get Rescue Leonard Kerman from Duna only once you've entered Dunas SoI, that's for sure.

[Invader Myk]

Honestly, I don't think there's ANY reason to test any engine on the Mun or Minmus that can't be done from Vacuum tests. Maybe landing gear tests to see if dust is a problem, or maybe testing rocket engines on Eve or Duna, but not Mun or Minmus or Ike or GIlly or any airless body.

Will Munar dust stirred up on landing clog the injectors or foul the lubrication on the gimbals?

[nightingale]

Goodness, these are subjects I've given lots of thought to, and I don't think I can fit everything in one post. I'll focus on just strategies and wrap around to contracts later.

First, let's get the obvious out of the way: as they currently are, strategies are completely game breaking.

From what I can tell, the idea being strategies was for them to be interesting gameplay decisions. So my focus is on moving them towards that goal.

Currency Conversion

The entire notion of converting between the various game "currencies" does not make sense from a design point of view - or at least, it's so difficult to balance to make it not worthwhile. A few reasons:

1. There is no late game way of spending science. Once you finish the tech tree, there is no more way to spend science - so you're end up "forced" as a player to simply take the "convert science to 'x' strategies".
   
2. Reputation is almost useless. Yes, it gets the player better contracts, but that's it. Compound with the fact that once you get close to peak reputation, you actually can't get more (or rather, what you receive becomes a small fraction of what the contract says you'll get). Again, the player's decision quickly turns into "convert reputation to 'x'".
   

My option is that currency conversion strategies should get scrapped completely and replaced with strategies that are interesting gameplay decisions.

Strategy Balance

Each strategy right now has a "bad" half and a "good" half. For example, "get less science / get more funds" is one strategy. I don't necessarily think this needs to be the case - as the fact that you can pick only one strategy per category is a limiting factor. If you give enough interesting/varied choices to the player within a category, it will become an interesting decision to pick which one they want. Ideally these strategies should be things that aren't min/max-able. Giving more funds isn't interesting. Doing something that makes your rockets "more better" is interesting. Anyway, the point is - I'm not going to necessarily provide "drawbacks" to these strategies, but it's easy enough to come up with interesting offsets to them if necessary.

Cater to Different Play Styles

To meet their design goal, I think strategies should cater as much as possible to different play styles. There should be some strategies that encourage/reward building space planes, others that might encourage building big stations/ships/bases. Not sure how many different "play styles" can be come up with here... but it's something that warrants consideration in my opinion.

Possible Strategies

Okay, here's one big list of random stuff! I won't try to categorizes these into the current categories, this is just brainstorming.

1. Advanced areodynamics - vessels have slightly less drag.
   
2. More efficient engines - engines have a slightly higher ISP.
   
3. Bigger engines - engines have slightly higher thrust.
   
4. Bigger panels - panels produce more power.
   
5. Better panels - panels lose efficiency due to distance from the Sun slower.
   
6. Better recruiting - Recruits start with some experience.
   
7. Apprenticeship - Kerbals gain experience faster when on the same vessel as a 5 star of the same profession.
   
8. Advanced Rovers - Rovers drive as if they were 2x heavier.
   
9. Nuclear non-proliferation treaty - No LVNs allowed. Receive more rep.
   
10. Girl Power - Receive more rep for missions done with all female crews
    
11. Closed borders - Cannot recover vessels that are more than 10km from KSC. Receive more funds in compensation.
    
12. Low tech - Science is locked at zero. Contract funds increased by x% for each unlocked tech node.
    
13. Megastructures - Receive funds for stations in orbit over a certain tonnage. (Funds over time, perhaps - if time mattered)
    
14. Killer asteroids - Increased funding. Increased asteroid detection. Player receives contracts to divert killer asteroids. Failing to divert them results in game over! May need a better hook to make the player want to pick this.
    

Baby's awake now, so I'm out of time - I could easily come up with dozens more in this vein. Some of these ideas are good, some are pretty random. The point is though - strategies don't need to be "convert x into y at a z% loss". They can be so much better!

Oh, and also, many of these are gameable - so we have to pretend certain assumptions are true:

1. Changing strategies has a cost - perhaps they take time to change over
   
2. Time in KSP matters (otherwise we need another way to penalize changing strategies)
   

[Crzyrndm]

FYI (link to post),

Atleast should be changed to entering the same situation as the object to be rescued/tested (stable orbit for an orbital rescue, landing for a ground rescue, sub-orbital for a sub-orbital part test).

First, let's get the obvious out of the way: as they currently are, strategies are completely game breaking.

I don't think I would go quite that far (except for the current numbers...), but I do think they missed the mark by a fair way. Have to emphasise one of the more important reasons that you made about this: in the long run only funds matters. Science is early game grind. Rep is permanently irrelevant.

To make the strategy/contracts systems more interesting and player friendly, how the currencies are dealt with needs to be re-examined (there's been plenty of other discussion on revamping science to refer to, rep is just wierd atm).

E:

Rep should probably just be removed as an element the player can deal with and just leave it as a background system that decides which contracts you can be offered (It's not like the player knows what it does atm anyway...)

Edited March 2, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[tater]

In a system with time (like KCT), rep could matter. You could then have a "national" program with an annual budget, and rep could result in increased funding.

[pertrep]

Firstly, this is the best game I have played and am sure it can only get better, so thanks.

My issue is keeping track of contracts. Specifically:

- since unlimited contracts was unlocked, I have tried to get as much metal as I can in space as economically as possible so try to complete two, three and even four contracts with a single launch. I now have a lot of contracts active and a lot of flights in space and each time I come to the game I have trouble remembering which contracts I have committed flights to and which flights line up with which contracts.

A possible solution might be a fourth tab in the Mission Control window that I can put Activated Contracts into (maybe even log vehicle name). Secondly, if contracts had a contract number (say 2 digit alpha numeric) I could put the contract number in the ship info and the alarm clock.

When I say I, I mean We.

[J.Random]

To balance outsourced R&D, I would propose making it more like aggressive negotiations (kind of). Lore-wise, external contractors may demand royalties for their help with the research. As in, strategy gives you an X% discount on R&D purchases, but for every R&D purchase made while strategy is active either next Y crafts launched cost Z% more, or Y contracts return Z% less funds, or maybe even both. Penalties may also be tied to unlocked (while the strategy is active) parts instead of crafts, adding to the cost of unlocked part itself.

Aggressive negotiations strategy may need balancing as well (probably also switching to % penalties for reputation), it's way too punishing now.

[basic.syntax]

Indeed, when you have more than three flights active on different contracts, remembering which ship (note rename option on command pod or probe core) goes with which contract, and overlapping flight events where you might miss a course correction or aerobrake, beg for a limited form of KAC. The TimeWarp To feature being added in 1.0, is a step in KAC's direction

[Superfluous J]

I disagree entirely with 5thHorseman regarding contracts and science in career mode.

While we disagree on the specifics, I think we agree in spirit. Also, I really like your suggestions!

We both want "Make money" to be separate from "Make science." You're championing a different way of doing that than I am. Yours does sound quite intriguing and I'd love to try it, but in the practical sense I don't think Squad would ever go that far. It would - for the most part - mean a complete rewrite of the system.

Note I'm not saying that a complete rewrite isn't warranted OR preferable. I just don't think they'll do it.

[tater]

Yeah, but within their system I honestly think that contracts and missions should actually drive "science" acquisition, that or a sort of procedural system that requires certain reasonable steps for gaining science. Right now the system is like looting artifacts from a site instead of methodically recording the process to make sure they have context.

[dryer_lint]

1. There is no late game way of spending science. Once you finish the tech tree, there is no more way to spend science - so you're end up "forced" as a player to simply take the "convert science to 'x' strategies".
   
2. Reputation is almost useless. Yes, it gets the player better contracts, but that's it. Compound with the fact that once you get close to peak reputation, you actually can't get more (or rather, what you receive becomes a small fraction of what the contract says you'll get). Again, the player's decision quickly turns into "convert reputation to 'x'".
   

This. So much this.

Once you fill in the tech-tree, which can be done laughably fast with Outsourced R&D, you're just going to be draining science into funding as much as you can. And once you build up reputation (which pretty much goes on in the background and results in "oh look I have max rep, when did that happen") you'll sink that into getting funds as well.

Money is really the biggest restraint so far. The others are barely visible once you get to the mid-game (because with the magical magic of Outsourced R&D, you've finished the entire tree by mid-game! Yay!)

That's the problem with tech trees. I've seen it happen in other games like Prison Architect, for example. Once you get good at it (as in, you build up a career with lots of backup cash) their "tech tree" is laughably unnoticeable. Everything is unlocked within 10 minutes.

Now KSP is having this problem, and it's killing one of the supposed core aspects of the game, science.

But of course this was supposed to be a thread about contracts and admin and stuff and I should really shut up

[NoMrBond]

Apart from balance required on the cost/rewards of present strategies (like turning on Funds -> Science for a single Kerbodyne contract giving you enough Science to finish the tech tree whilst the opposing Science -> Funds strategy providing an almost insignificant amount of funds)

All present strategies operate on future incomes (of any type)

We need some 'instant' strategies which allow us to manipulate the existing resources we have on hand (i.e. greasing palms (funds->rep), selling science (science->funds), holding junkets (rep->funds), etc)

Maybe some of these would be temporary (lasts X launches, or Y recoveries, or gets you Z missions you wouldn't normally qualify for due to low rep, rent an engine (for money) you wouldn't normally have access to but in must be recovered (or you loose your deposit and some rep), etc)

[DMagic]

My issue is keeping track of contracts.

Indeed, when you have more than three flights active on different contracts, remembering which ship (note rename option on command pod or probe core) goes with which contract, and overlapping flight events where you might miss a course correction or aerobrake, beg for a limited form of KAC.

For some reason I've always thought that adding some kind of mission list to my contracts window would be a lot of trouble. But I've just thought of a pretty simple solution.

I can add another button to the contract header in my contract window that lets you add a contract to one or more mission lists or create a new list, this is simple to do, both in code and visually. Then add another button at the top of the window to let you select from a list of missions, each one containing all of the contracts you've added to it. The default list would still contain all active contracts, but the lists could be used to store and organize individual contracts.

Whenever I get back to working on that I'll look into it.

[Claw]

I disagree entirely with 5thHorseman regarding contracts and science in career mode. I think the "contracts" should help drive science.

While we disagree on the specifics, I think we agree in spirit. Also, I really like your suggestions!

We both want "Make money" to be separate from "Make science."

Yeah, but within their system I honestly think that contracts and missions should actually drive "science" acquisition, that or a sort of procedural system that requires certain reasonable steps for gaining science. Right now the system is like looting artifacts from a site instead of methodically recording the process to make sure they have context.

This line of conversation is intriguing, but I want to make sure I'm not missing the subtlety. I see all the great example, but what is the overarching philosophy of "contracts driving science?" Are you proposing some sort of system that tracks what the user does, then provides contracts that continue to push them forward to explore? I do see that different as compared to a contract that ends with "and here's a heap of science for testing a part."

Is that sort of what you're getting at?

Indeed, when you have more than three flights active on different contracts, remembering which ship (note rename option on command pod or probe core) goes with which contract, and overlapping flight events where you might miss a course correction or aerobrake, beg for a limited form of KAC. The TimeWarp To feature being added in 1.0, is a step in KAC's direction

Yes indeed. I am a fan of "empower me to be a mission director, not a mission watcher." KAC is one of the two mods I use, solely for that purpose. And so that I don't find myself simply timewarping through everything. Unfortunately it's a separate mechanic from the contracts and strategy interaction.

Currency Conversion

The entire notion of converting between the various game "currencies" does not make sense from a design point of view - or at least, it's so difficult to balance to make it not worthwhile. A few reasons:

1. There is no late game way of spending science. Once you finish the tech tree, there is no more way to spend science - so you're end up "forced" as a player to simply take the "convert science to 'x' strategies".
   
2. Reputation is almost useless. Yes, it gets the player better contracts, but that's it. Compound with the fact that once you get close to peak reputation, you actually can't get more (or rather, what you receive becomes a small fraction of what the contract says you'll get). Again, the player's decision quickly turns into "convert reputation to 'x'".
   

This. So much this.

Once you fill in the tech-tree, which can be done laughably fast with Outsourced R&D, you're just going to be draining science into funding as much as you can. And once you build up reputation (which pretty much goes on in the background and results in "oh look I have max rep, when did that happen") you'll sink that into getting funds as well.

Money is really the biggest restraint so far. The others are barely visible once you get to the mid-game (because with the magical magic of Outsourced R&D, you've finished the entire tree by mid-game! Yay!)

That's the problem with tech trees. I've seen it happen in other games like Prison Architect, for example. Once you get good at it (as in, you build up a career with lots of backup cash) their "tech tree" is laughably unnoticeable. Everything is unlocked within 10 minutes.

Great ideas, and I think a few people have captured this. I think this is true, but also I think it is also sort of why the strategy system was created. At some point you have all the science you need, and the strategies exist to convert that extra science to funds, since there isn't a continuous science drain like there is with funds. I'm not really sure how that could be changed, since I think the tech tree is also intended to be unlocked without being forced to science "too much" (though some of that is holdover from before the extra biomes were introduced). And I suppose, as you pointed out, the science system is a whole 'nother topic (maybe for the next thread!).

Contract science is a strange animal. So, if part of the reason why the tech tree is so quick to unlock is because of Outsourced R&D...assume that strategy doesn't exist anymore (or is reduced) and that science from contracts is dramatically reduced (just for the sake of argument). Does that change the perception any? How does that affect things? I know there is still tons of science out there, but what if you are more driven to obtain science by going out and doing science? (I'm also aware that this doesn't change the lack of endgame expenditure for science.)

First of all, I think some contracts should come from The Space Program itself. Specifically, all explore contracts or contracts that would directly benefit the space program. Maybe The Space Program's ingame name would be that of the save file's title, and thus instead of saves being labeled "Player Name", they should be labeled "Space Program Name."

I see what you are saying, but how does this differ from the current mechanic? (I mean, beyond the fact that I have to go click on the "Explore Mun" contract.) Also, I do like the idea of contracts building off of each other (similar to the idea of pushing along science/exploration via contracts).

Cheers,

~Claw

[Invader Myk]

Contract science is a strange animal. So, if part of the reason why the tech tree is so quick to unlock is because of Outsourced R&D...assume that strategy doesn't exist anymore (or is reduced) and that science from contracts is dramatically reduced (just for the sake of argument). Does that change the perception any? How does that affect things? I know there is still tons of science out there, but what if you are more driven to obtain science by going out and doing science? (I'm also aware that this doesn't change the lack of endgame expenditure for science.)

That would go a long way towards making the scientific discovery part of the game feel more sciencey. But, imo, the problem is endemic to the game because science is treated as a resource to be collected. I'll stop here because

the science system is a whole 'nother topic

Edited March 2, 2015 by Invader Myk

[tater]

This line of conversation is intriguing, but I want to make sure I'm not missing the subtlety. I see all the great example, but what is the overarching philosophy of "contracts driving science?" Are you proposing some sort of system that tracks what the user does, then provides contracts that continue to push them forward to explore? I do see that different as compared to a contract that ends with "and here's a heap of science for testing a part."

Is that sort of what you're getting at?

Claw, I suppose what I'm getting at is to make the planetary science "make sense," in a story telling sense. Landing in every region and clicking is not all it should be. If the most narrative "feel" comes from having Linus Kerman (your program's science director according to the Strategies building) throw out a set of places his team wants surveys, or sample collections from, then that is "contract driven" but works. The key is to have those NOT be entirely random. They need to make sense. Scan the Mun FIRST, then, within scanned regions, Linus selects places for data collection. perhaps before the FIRST Mun landing, they are not procedural, but pulled from a list of desirable first landing sites (nice terrain for landing).

I'm honestly unsure, but I think it's lacking now. And the repetitive Fine Print stuff adds more grind---I like many of the ideas, but I don't like them repeated, endlessly, but random. It needs a story line, or the new contracts are just different than the old, and rapidly become boring. There are some great ideas in this thread, actually.

I see what you are saying, but how does this differ from the current mechanic? (I mean, beyond the fact that I have to go click on the "Explore Mun" contract.) Also, I do like the idea of

I'm saying the same thing. It is NOT different, but it matters, anyway. There would be "contracts" for 3d party, commercial stuff (primary reward funds), and the pure science would come from your own program (I'm using "Missions" for this). Unless your personal goal is 100% commercial, Missions is what the program is ABOUT, science. Contracts are a way to help pay the bills.

Missions might be more like the Survey and Explore contracts we see now, muti-part, and related to one another (having chosen to to the "Prosector's Alpha, Beta, etc" survey region, your next suggestions from Linus might tend to be to illuminate those areas with further missions).

Edited March 2, 2015 by tater

[basic.syntax]

We both want "Make money" to be separate from "Make science."

some sort of system that tracks what the user does, then provides contracts that continue to push them forward to explore?

We already have this in the "explore" contracts, that push players toward the next unexplored SoI. Perhaps this could be expanded to encourage other activities the player hasn't done yet. (But carefully, prepared for complaints that "you are dictating My space program!")

I'm not really sure how that could be changed, since I think the tech tree is also intended to be unlocked without being forced to science "too much" (though some of that is holdover from before the extra biomes were introduced).

So we have a little conflict: the system has logically been flooded with new Science points potential via Fine Print contracts, and biomes everywhere in .90, resulting in the average player unlocking the tech tree faster, than in builds prior to .90. If science should be less of a grind - than being able to afford the cool toys, then, that is where we are now. I think experienced players are biased toward wanting more challenge, more to do - and that's mostly who is writing here

The developers will have to study the metrics they get back from players agreeing to send data, and decide, also factoring in advanced difficulty settings, if players are progressing "too fast." (If data collected is not good enough to make that determination, they will have to go with their own analysis and anecdotal reports, like ours here.)

I remember the early forum complaints about contract rewards were closely tied in with KSC upgrades being "so expensive" and therefore, progress seemed "too grindy." Experienced players countered these complaints by pointing out the advanced game setup options where you can dial up or down the various rewards. And that if you stick with it, more rewarding contracts appear as Reputation increases. Regardless of Strategies and game setup features, the developers have to consider their intended default game balance.

The best (or maybe just... the most challenging - Squad probably doesn't want to go in this direction) games force you into an agony of choice at every turn: you want to have three things, but you're only allowed to choose one at a time. Which of the three will you pick, this turn?

Look at the tight agonizing balance of Firaxis' X-COM remake: back in the base, you want cool tech so you can win the war. But you need Science to get at the tech faster. To get more Science you need a lab, which costs Funds. Your troops need weapons, which cost Funds. The lab and the weapons take time to build, based on how many Engineers you can get. Which to build first: a workshop for the engineers, or a science lab? Maybe... neither one. Get out "into space" - take a mission, lose a level 3 custom-named Kerbal to an RNG accident (Nooooo!), and you might discover something cool.

There are a lot of neat ideas here, and I'd love to see something of it shake out of Squad's blender, into 1.0.

Edited March 2, 2015 by basic.syntax

[basic.syntax]

Edit

(added indented top section):

if part of the reason why the tech tree is so quick to unlock is because of Outsourced R&D...assume that strategy doesn't exist anymore (or is reduced) and that science from contracts is dramatically reduced (just for the sake of argument). Does that change the perception any? How does that affect things?

For the reasons you go on to list, removing Outsourced R&D doesn't change much. For me, it was already removed. I didn't choose this strategy in my .90 run-through, and was pulling back 700-900 science each trip to Mun and especially Minimus, low gravity makes it easier to hit a lot of biomes. I had all the science points I needed, well before I had 4.5m Funds (under my particular game settings) to unlock the last R&D tier. Whatever parts are in the .90 top tier - I didn't "need" any of it

Claw, I suppose what I'm getting at is to make the planetary science "make sense," in a story telling sense. Landing in every region and clicking is not all it should be. .... Scan the Mun FIRST, then, within scanned regions, Linus selects places for data collection. perhaps before the FIRST Mun landing, they are not procedural, but pulled from a list of desirable first landing sites (nice terrain for landing).

This would be great, a sort of story-driven mini campaign to get the player on their feet, perhaps it could become the tutorial, and be skip-able. [Ground test, collect some science, reach altitude, orbit, rendezvous, Mun landing.] Then after you have done this set of linked contracts, the large pool of procedurals is opened up. Some could require a return trip, as tater suggests.

tater is also suggesting a dual system: funds rewards (contracts), or science rewards (Missions).

I see the Mission Science reward coming from player actions during the Mission.

Perhaps you get nothing but a thank-you on the completion screen?

A token amount of science points, since the majority comes from your actions?

This dual system would give players a choice: do I want Funds or Science this time?

What to do when the tech tree is unlocked: are players going to keep picking Science missions?

To maintain value after the tech tree is unlocked, we would need more uses for science points.

Perhaps also require Science points to unlock building tiers? Upkeep costs?

An ultimate goal: Civilization-style "Wonder?" (Do this and you can consider your game 'won,' the solar system is Explored, be presented with an "end screen" picture signed by all the KSC staff, your space program is complete.)

Edited March 2, 2015 by basic.syntax

[nightingale]

The best (or maybe just... the most challenging - Squad probably doesn't want to go in this direction) games force you into an agony of choice at every turn: you want to have three things, but you're only allowed to choose one at a time. Which of the three will you pick, this turn?

Look at the tight agonizing balance of Firaxis' X-COM remake: back in the base, you want cool tech so you can win the war. But you need Science to get at the tech faster. To get more Science you need a lab, which costs Funds. Your troops need weapons, which cost Funds. The lab and the weapons take time to build, based on how many Engineers you can get. Which to build first: a workshop for the engineers, or a science lab? Maybe... neither one. Get out "into space" - take a mission, lose a level 3 custom-named Kerbal to an RNG accident (Nooooo!), and you might discover something cool.

This summarizes perfectly what I was getting at (or trying to get at) with my strategies post. It needs to be about the player having meaningful choice. That's why I say the "currency conversion" mechanic is broken - even if the exchange rates are corrected to something sane, it just isn't something the player will sit and ponder about.

I agree with 5thHorseman's statement a few pages back that science shouldn't come from contracts. Or rather, most contracts. I could see a contract where say you are tasked with crashing a probe into a comet/asteroid to see what happens... for SCIENCE. But testing a part on the launchpad... no thank you!

I'd say it should be:

Science - existing system already in place (although it sounds like this will be revamped, and we may have another thread on this...)

Funds - From contracts

Reputation - Tie it into the achievement system. Getting FirstLaunch, reaching orbit, landing on the moon all give you reputation. It's built over time, and not gained because you tested a big part on the launch pad.

And since I can't let go of my favourite contract whipping boy (Part Test)... How I'd fix Part Test contracts:

1. No longer offered for trivial situations (launchpad, splashed).
   
2. Involve multiple parts from one manufacturer.
   
3. Require 2-4 different tests to be run at different locations (number varies based on contract prestige). Maybe do it as the same situation, but different biomes.
   

Something like this would keep the "spirit" of the part test contracts, but remove the gaminess of accepting 5 ones that can be met on the launchpad, assembling a franken-rocket and collecting all the Funds/Science/Rep.

[tater]

^^^Great post.

I agree entirely, particularly on part contracts. I'd be fine with part testing being part of unlocking them, but we'd need failures, or useful things to learn about the parts in testing for that. Otherwise, meaningful tests ONLY. If you get a 2.5m engine test, you require tanks to make it work well, for example, even staging decouplers.

I really liked your other post, but I like to reserve "strategy" for really broad goals. From a player standpoint, more like, "Do you want to be a private contractor, or more like NASA?"

I liked what you have as strategies, but I think of some of them as underlying world reality, others as good choices---you want to be a commercial contractor, but you want spaceplanes, NOT rockets, and everything aims in that direction.

[Wanderfound]

As well as the money -> science strategy being overpowered, the anything -> money strategies are underpowered. They're all off by about a factor of ten.

[nightingale]

I really liked your other post, but I like to reserve "strategy" for really broad goals. From a player standpoint, more like, "Do you want to be a private contractor, or more like NASA?"

In that case, maybe it would be interesting if the choice of strategy dictated the "type" of contract that is offered? Of course, the contract system would need far more breadth of contracts for that to be workable, but that certainly would make the strategies actually change how the game plays out. Then again, even at its simplest:

NASA

- No part test or tourism contracts (and give us government funding!!!)

Private Contractor

- No explore "X" contracts, harder to get science.

But I think that's actually too dictatorial for the strategy system - I'd love to see that in place as an up-front choice the player makes when starting the game. A choice that they cannot take back​.

[Crzyrndm]

Thinking about XCOM:EU and strategies, why don't strategies take after the XCOM base construction a bit more. In particular the investment in the building of laboratories and workshops which gives you benefits later on

[basic.syntax]

nightingale strategies: I think you're on to something: choose a bold direction for your space program! Could promote replayability. Some players have been asking for how they can get out of doing unliked contract types, so a third "custom" option could find the player checking off which contract types they will have available... perhaps "pick three from this list." **

You wanted it to be permanent so the choice would have consequences... perhaps less permanence in the choice could work, if some consequences were added. After you have done a certain number of contracts, perhaps you would be allowed to go into the strategy building and ask for a "review" - where you could swap one contract type for another, costing some Reputation. That's less harsh on a player than asking them to start a new career. (It could also be paid for in the form of a new rep cap, or permanent % reduction for all future reputation gains.)

**Edit: one of the problems with forcing an up-front choice, is, players won't know if they will like a particular thing unless it is explained very well, or they have done it. The most informed answer comes after you've tried to do something. So, I think this choice of "space program strategy" should occur AFTER some intro contracts or tutorial stuff, after some of the things being asked about have likely been attempted.)

Edited March 2, 2015 by basic.syntax