Contracts and Administration Strategies

[basic.syntax]

Would it be possible to matrix task... against method

At first glance, matrix task against method sounds good, but, players exploring and finding their own method to achieve said task, adds replay value. Players will look for the method / solution that gets the job done with least cost or least time, or make up their own challenge. I like the general idea of rewarding a result that was more efficient, less cost or time... if methods can be found to judge that, non-judgementally... lol. A "report card" grading your efforts sounds cool, but is close to making players feel bad, for not doing something in the most optimal way that the contract writer thought you should do it. The idea requires a careful hand.

I wouldn't mind throwing up another satellite if it was more difficult that the last one

Ahh.. so perhaps a check on each satellite contract, to make sure it is farther out or at least +/- 15 degree different orbit plane than the last. This fits with other suggestions asking for a less totally random relationship inside contract types.

funds / reputation drain over time

This sounds cool and realistic, but, I think it would push the feeling of "grind" at players. "I HAVE to take this crummy contract." Perhaps if the bill was low enough, almost a joke, it would be more like a reminder of time passing and encouragement to keep pushing ahead, vs setting up thoughts of a "grind." (Developers understandably don't like spending time to code something most players will ignore.)

I really like the idea of expanding the Kerbal world with that "other space agency" - but it needs so much thought and Squad feature work to be meaningful, it deserves its own update, post 1.0.

One aspect of missed opportunities, is the fact players must check the contract building. How about a "new contracts available" pop-up message?

[nightingale]

However, something that I'm still falling back and forth on in the conversations is the idea of "grindy" and "contract farming." There's discussions that people want different contracts, but somehow people fall back on "favorites" anyway. Balance is clearly an issue, but how do you prevent "contract farming" while still giving people contracts that they prefer? If you aren't offered contracts that you like, then it's "driving your space agency." But if you keep getting the same contracts, it becomes "grindy" or that you can simply get into "contract farming." "Stop showing me these other contracts!" and "Stop giving me the same contracts!" seem a bit at odds.

I guess the question at heart is "what is Squad's design goal for contracts?" If they are meant to be a side show in the "this is how you get funds to do the stuff you actually want to do" sense, then I agree with regex - there's always going to be some level of grind. If they are meant to be missions/goals for the player, then we certainly can reduce the grind:

1. Provide contracts that may align with the things the players already want to do (the "explore x" contracts are a a good example, although there are some issues with the implementation). This gets harder as we move into the medium and late game, as stock KSP to me seems to lose focus on what the goal is in that phase (as regex puts it, it's a sandbox game at heart).
   
2. Provide alternate funding methods. I'm a believer that we should have the notion of a monthly budget from a "government" where most of the funds come from. If this concept was introduced then they could also be the ones setting the goals of the space program. Again, for a budget to work other things have to be done to make time matter. Another option for alternate funding could be through the monetization of space. Setting up commercial satellites, resource mining operations and tourist stations could all be recurring sources of revenue, rather than one-time.
   

[pertrep]

At first glance, matrix task against method sounds good, but, players exploring and finding their own method to achieve said task, adds replay value.

I think you are right in a general sense, but we all choose the methods over again that we have mastered best. Would it not add a challenge to have the "how" constrained in some way as we progress through the game. I avoided planes because I just couldn't get my head around the game dynamic of flight, until I had to. Now I love them. Still not great at it but I don't avoid them. Matrixing task against method could lead to some tricky scenarios for the experienced player. In a way, it leads to simple scenario missions: send a repair man, find and fix a fault, get something going again using standard satellite missions (say) as the vehicle to do it. I would not suggest constraining creativity, merely increasing the challenge from stock missions, so that we don't get that "not one of these again" feeling. Replay value is about mastering challenges, which is why most games get harder as you progress, not simply giving more tools to progress with. Thanks.

[Claw]

Claw, I was expecting you to throw some cold water on this brainstorming, because we've pretty much reinvented how Strategies might work in the last 3 pages - your initial charter was asking us to look for what tweaks to existing Strategies - and Contracts that would fit inside the current Contract system - would be helpful.

Indeed it has. Although I have some other events to attend to during the day and (to some extent) I am interested in the brainstorming process.

Although you're right, I am looking for stuff that fits within the current system rather than a complete overhaul. Though exactly where that line ends isn't perfectly clear either.

Why bother "solving" contract farming in the first place? KSP is a sandbox game at its heart and some amount of "gaming the system" should be expected from creative or skilled players. Contracts in KSP pretty much always introduce a certain level of "grind" unless those contracts coincide with the player's intended goals so I don't think this is nearly the problem people perceive it to be.

I would agree with this. Which is why I'm trying to understand exactly what is grindy about it, and how it would be fixed.

Personally if I don't enjoy a contract type (such as part test contracts), I just ignore them. Even if they are incredibly easy, I'm not forced to take them. I also dislike base contracts, which I ignore. So I am trying to understand the other side of this point of view where it's compelling to accept contracts that you wouldn't want, especially if it's impinging upon game play style.

Cheers,

~Claw

[nightingale]

I would agree with this. Which is why I'm trying to understand exactly what is grindy about it, and how it would be fixed.

I think it's more like this scenario:

Player: "I want to go to Duna. I will need x, y and z parts, which require the 3 million fund R&D upgrade, plus 1 million to build the stuff I have planned. I have 2 million. I guess it's time to take whatever contracts have the best payoff/effort ratio, even though I don't really want to do them."

[regex]

I would agree with this. Which is why I'm trying to understand exactly what is grindy about it, and how it would be fixed.

Personally if I don't enjoy a contract type (such as part test contracts), I just ignore them. Even if they are incredibly easy, I'm not forced to take them. I also dislike base contracts, which I ignore. So I am trying to understand the other side of this point of view where it's compelling to accept contracts that you wouldn't want, especially if it's impinging upon game play style.

In a nutshell, taking contracts I don't want to fly or declining those contracts is literally terrible. Seriously. I should never have to decline contracts, I should be able to define what my space program wants to do, set that as a over-arching goal, and do contracts that progress me towards that goal. This being a sandbox game, I should be defining my own goals. Contracts actually detract from me achieving that and turn it into "Satellite Launch #86 Simulator", and if you ("you people", not talking to anyone in particular) don't find it that way, that's great, but the big contracts that get me the money I want now so I can upgrade these horribly priced buildings that do and see things that should already be enabled for me are just ... boring.

And please, before anyone says it, I'm not going to play sandbox for this experience. I enjoy playing with limited parts and resources but I simply cannot bring myself to continually click "decline" until I find something I want to actually fly that gets me to my overall goal of a Bop base. Or whatever.

E: Ah, I was responding to the first part of what I quoted, my bad.

I would agree with this. Which is why I'm trying to understand exactly what is grindy about it, and how it would be fixed.

I think it's more like this scenario:

Player: "I want to go to Duna. I will need x, y and z parts, which require the 3 million fund R&D upgrade, plus 1 million to build the stuff I have planned. I have 2 million. I guess it's time to take whatever contracts have the best payoff/effort ratio, even though I don't really want to do them."

This, exactly. You can say this is a normal part of gameplay, but I'm not here to launch twenty satellites into polar orbit or test eight thousand parts just so I can do a mission to Eeloo. I'd rather progress outward, maybe build a space station, some refueling bases along the way, etc... If the contracts were interesting, readable, and maybe had some sense of being connected, I wouldn't mind doing a satellite launch every once in a while. Unfortunately contracts are so random that I rarely see the chance to do that. Maybe this comes from playing a modded game where I have tons of extra parts and I use parts unlocks, but the fact that I took the maximum starting cash, gave myself some starting bonuses, and still found it grindy probably says something. Edited March 3, 2015 by regex

[Crzyrndm]

Player: "I want to go to Duna. I will need x, y and z parts, which require the 3 million fund R&D upgrade, plus 1 million to build the stuff I have planned. I have 2 million. I guess it's time to take whatever contracts have the best payoff/effort ratio, even though I don't really want to do them."

Something like that. It doesn't matter which ones I do and don't like, the fact that I need to do 20 (randomly picked number) arbitrary contracts without a break to get my facilities to a reasonable level of functionality (lvl2 VAB, lvl2 Pad, lvl2 tracking station, and probably lvl2 R&D) really gets on my nerves to the point where I just give myself enough money to skip that now. Out of 5 restarts I got all four upgraded once. The other four I got bored and went and did something else.

Do I actually need a 130 part limit to get going? No, I can get to Duna on 100 or less. But 30 is painfully low, so I grind out that upgrade. If the upgrade amounts were more incremental (say +5-10 parts per upgrade. Do not need a visual upgrade) I could gradually increase my capabilities as I go along and don't feel stuck behind a wall.

Same goes for the pad (I have yet to hit the level 2 weight limit, ever), and R&D (invest money to unlock the next tier, not the next 5 tiers all at once).

Summary: Building upgrades are annoying progression walls that you have to grind a certain number of contracts to pass. You can't do anything useful untill you get over the hump

Edited March 3, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[Wanderfound]

I would agree with this. Which is why I'm trying to understand exactly what is grindy about it, and how it would be fixed.

Personally if I don't enjoy a contract type (such as part test contracts), I just ignore them. Even if they are incredibly easy, I'm not forced to take them. I also dislike base contracts, which I ignore. So I am trying to understand the other side of this point of view where it's compelling to accept contracts that you wouldn't want, especially if it's impinging upon game play style.

I'm another who'll happily ignore contracts that I don't like, and I enjoy most of the contracts that are available anyway. But it's still grindy as hell.

I like doing satellite launch contracts; I find them easy but interesting, and self-imposed challenges (Can I launch three satellites to three different SOIs off one SRB? How many contracts can I fulfil with just one satellite? Etc.) add to that.

But when it came time to upgrade the R&D building so that I could access spaceplane parts, I found myself having to do twenty satellite missions in a row in order to raise the needed cash. By number 20, the novelty had definitely worn off.

Could I have added more variety to the missions? Sure...at the cost of making the fundraising process even more protracted and grindy. And by the time I finally had the cash to upgrade R&D, there was so much science banked up that I immediately unlocked every node possible and found myself once again needing to raise a squillion √ to proceed further.

I've abandoned career mode until they get it sorted. It just stopped being fun.

[tater]

I think it's more like this scenario:

Player: "I want to go to Duna. I will need x, y and z parts, which require the 3 million fund R&D upgrade, plus 1 million to build the stuff I have planned. I have 2 million. I guess it's time to take whatever contracts have the best payoff/effort ratio, even though I don't really want to do them."

This is such a terrible mechanic, IMO. If that is what a player wants, they can do sandbox or science mode, right? I want career… I dunno why I want career, actually, I want context I guess.

Let;s rethink science/funds return over time for a sec. There are missions that pay decent funds, and nearly no science, like science from orbit, right? It's grindy, but you can take them over and over as fast as you can exit contracts, enter tracking, click probe with sensor (or a crew compartment), send science, return to KSC, decline contracts til you see another, repeat. That's right now. We'd have to test, but at 30k a shot (and 1 science), and no time passing in Mission Control, you can fill the bank account in no time if you can stand the clicking (I just checked, the munar contracts are ~70k, and 2 science). We are told that science over time is bad, because players will just warp past the time. SO WHAT! The time then passes. The other contracts or goals that actually have time limits MATTER for the first time.

So time-based contracts for funds (science/funds per unit time)---the mere existence of them---instantly make time matter with no KCT-like stuff at all. Note that they need not make X funds per minute, and Y science, they'd make maybe 5,000 fund per MONTH, and 0.5 science (or whatever). Yeah, you can warp ahead, but if all the contracts (and the early explore goals at the least) have reasonable time limits, then it is self-defeating. You could take rep hits (assuming it is made to matter) for every X months with no launches, possibly as another mechanism to curtail serious abuse.

How would this play?

Say the starting career fund rewards are low, and players actually struggle a little with funds (hard to imagine now) after rebalancing. Then a few contract types that pay a few thousand per month exist. You might only be allowed so many based upon facility upgrades (another balance tweak method). So our player now has nearly no funds after a tragic accident involving poor Jeb, but needs 20k to build a rocket for what he wants to do next (mission already selected). He has a satellite in orbit can make that 20k in 4 months of collecting data. He time warps---but 1.0 is supposed to have skip to node, so it uses THAT, 1 click, 4 months pass---and he can can now do the next mission because he has the funds.

That extra click or clicks to skip ahead is less grind than the clickfest of taking the same contract now (which pays better), and time actually passes. Make these contracts useful enough that they effectively fund an annual program a few thousand at a time.

It is a time mechanism that uses nothing not already in the game, and succeeds entirely because it is a beneficial strategy.

Edited March 3, 2015 by tater

[basic.syntax]

A "grind" is doing something you don't like very much, knowing you will eventually progress toward an upgrade or activity you like more.

Yet, if the activity you like better - is the same contract type, just in a different place: that also ought to get boring with too much repetition.

Physical "grind" is reduced by increased pay, or decreased costs.

Perceptual "grind" could be reduced by more variety of available activities.

[Superfluous J]

Maybe I'm weird but I can't get enough Survey contracts. I can bounce around Minmus all day, and after about an hour I have more science and money than I know what to do with.

Sure I've got to decline a lot of contracts before I get those, but with 2 mods (rejecter and that "quick mods" mod that lets you hit X to reject a specific contract) that is very simple to do and only takes a few seconds. I spend far more time finding OX-STATs in the Utility menu than I ever do canceling contracts.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I'm going to read all the replies to this thread later, but here's my thoughts:

- separate out Maintain Stability For 10 Seconds in the satellite contracts into A, Maintain Stability and B, For 30 days (or whatever). It'd help solve some of the exploiting of using the same vessel for multiple orbits. Yes, you could timewarp those days and complete the contract, but if you do, you're no better off or further on than if it was for 10 seconds, so it doesn't matter. But, as I said, it'd help exploits and seem a bit more reasonable.

- The 'Explore X' contracts shouldn't follow a progression and be unavailable at times the game chooses. I wouldn't mind if they were always available to take.

- Contracts are backwards - they should be 'I'm going to do a thing, who'll give me some reward for it?' rather than 'Give me something to do and pay me for it'. Say I do a return trip to Moho - unless a company is looking to do something there or on the way, the returning a kerbal from the innermost planet, a pretty big feat, doesn't award me anything. No rep, no funds, no 'hey, you did something great! Have some funding'

- The only way to get funds at all is to do contracts. This is why they're grindy, especially with the ludicrous R&D upgrade price. Oh you want to spend more than 500 science? And you have 1153? Looks like you'll have to do more of the same and more and more and more and more until you have the money. Cutting the R&D upgrade price by 50% would be a good start.

- Monthly (governmental?) funding is needed, with the amount given calculated from various achievements. Use and expand the internal progress tracking and the UT timestamp to see what's been done in the last 30 days and award funds (no science) based on that. Do nothing? Get nothing. Do loads of things? Get funding. If you timewarp on a trip out to Jool, you're no better or worse off for it. Unless you actually do something in that time, you won't end up rolling in money and you won't end up in debt, you'll end up exactly as you left off. Maybe the rep could be some bonus multiplier on top, or some baseline or whatever. It's effect is negligible now, so any change would be an improvement.

- How to stop this government funding being OP? What's to stop you launching 30 Mun missions, 5 solar ejections, farming Minmus for Science and then getting a bajillion Funds in the first month? Some kind of construction time, that's what. Make things take, maybe not a week, but at least some days. Enough for you to do a few missions a month, at least. Obviously, the funding you get would have to be more than the launch costs at the very least, so running out of funds shouldn't really happen. As long as you do things, you'll get Funds. Pretty simple. And it's self policing too - say you build up multiple cheap and small copies of the same craft and put them in LKO. Sure, you get your costs covered at the end of the month, but you've still only achieved LKO (add on diminishing returns on top) so you're not going to get that much bonus. And now you have a bunch of useless junk in orbit that you wasted your money on.

- The strategies are.. basic, to say the least. If you want them to remain the same idea, they need to be fleshed out more (see Serious Kerbal Business and Strategem for ideas on expansion). These not only give -funds+science or whatever, the rewards are varied. Two improvements to the base system though - allow me to change commitment after acceptance (see thread for a bit of discussion on this) and revise the 'conflicting strategies' logic too. Some conflicting strategies aren't really conflicting. I do remember reading about changing the strategies to be more of an 'overall story arc' and that's cool to. Say I want to focus on cutting edge exploration or research, or ISRU, or colonisation.. the contracts I would get would be more tailored to this or be entirely different.

I have more ideas, but no more time. One more thing though - if Squad could make it so Agencies from mods that I do contracts for and then remove the mod.. could they not break the savefile please (detailed in DMagic Orbital Science OP, under FAQ)? Cheers.

Edit: to clarify on my contracts are backwards thing.. I mean it like, the player says basically 'I'm going to Duna, anyone want anything?' Various agents then present contracts related to that. Say, Rockomax will give you 20% discount on their parts for it at the cost of -5% rep if you use Kerbodyne parts. Or Probododyne asks you to test their engine there. Or R&D will give a percentage increase on Science experiments done there. Also, the government funding could take this into account - if you say you're off to Duna, the funding is increased or you get an advance for a month, long enough to build whatever thing you want to take there.

This way, its not third party companies hiring you to put metal into space, you decide the direction next. You decide what you want to do and then various companies ask to be a part of it.

Maybe there'd be an overall tracking thing as well like if you take lots of succesive Rockomax contracts, you get a permanent discount on the parts. Or I dunno.. something to make the Agents mean something. At the moment, they might as well all be given by the same company, it never matters if you choose White Owl Emporium contracts over StrutCo ones or whatever.

Edited March 3, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Jouni]

I think it's more like this scenario:

Player: "I want to go to Duna. I will need x, y and z parts, which require the 3 million fund R&D upgrade, plus 1 million to build the stuff I have planned. I have 2 million. I guess it's time to take whatever contracts have the best payoff/effort ratio, even though I don't really want to do them."

Right now it's more like: "I want to go Duna. Tier-1 R&D allows me to build big rockets with solar panels, so I don't really need to upgrade it, unless I want to use multi-kerbal pods. The tier-2 VAB and launchpad I used to go to Mun and Minmus are good enough to build and launch the rocket. The rocket itself costs next to nothing, so I can easily cover mission costs with the advance from the contract."

[KSK]

I think folks have already touched on most of this already but I'd like to see three main improvements to the contracts system.

First - overhauled flavour text. Contracts are the core of Career Mode because they're the only way to obtain funds but right now they don't feel like they have a lot of purpose to them other than giving you money. And as ObsessedWithKSP pointed out, they might as well all be given by the same company.

In my opinion, making the contracts more engaging would improve the whole game by providing some context and narrative for your space program. Better flavour text would be a first step towards that by giving different companies more personality and providing a reason for the contracts they hand out (beyond the ever-popular checking whether Kerbin's day is exactly 6 hours).

Second - linked contracts. Somebody has already mentioned this with regards to space stations but I think it could be applied to pretty much all the contract types. For example, Sean's Cannery hire you to put a communication satellite into kerbostationary orbit - which you do. Some time later they come back with a second contract for you to help with their booming telecoms business by putting another kerbostationary satellite up for them (at a different longitude). Some time later still, they want an update to their satellite fleet and 'because Sean's Cannery is an environmentally friendly company - even in space' they want you to deorbit one of the old sats first.

For me, little mini-stories like that would add a sense of progression to my space program and a sense that I was building up a space infrastructure for kerbalkind.

Finally - time. Have stuff take time to build. Again, just my opinion, but having played around with KCT, it does give your space program more of an epic feel, rather than 'Day 1 - launched Jeb to 6,000 m.... day 4 - went to the Mun. If the entire pad crew hadn't taken Sunday off, we could have gotten there on day 3.' It should also make contracts a bit more engaging by making their expiry dates a bit more meaningful and potentially having the player juggle conflicting priorities and overlapping contracts. Plus it opens up the possibility of time-critical contracts. Rescue this kerbal within 5 days, get supplies to this station by the end of the month - that kind of thing.

Edited March 3, 2015 by KSK

[regex]

- The 'Explore X' contracts shouldn't follow a progression and be unavailable at times the game chooses. I wouldn't mind if they were always available to take.

I'm not sure why they're not. I feel like that was a bad choice and why I think each location should have its own contracts.

- Contracts are backwards - they should be 'I'm going to do a thing, who'll give me some reward for it?' rather than 'Give me something to do and pay me for it'. Say I do a return trip to Moho - unless a company is looking to do something there or on the way, the returning a kerbal from the innermost planet, a pretty big feat, doesn't award me anything. No rep, no funds, no 'hey, you did something great! Have some funding'

I proposed something similar to this a long time ago, a system where you basically constructed missions. Something I would love to see in this game are mission proposals, where you create a mission and see if anyone is willing to fund you doing it based on their attitudes. i would also like to see the game do exactly what you suggest, reward you for doing the things you were already going to do.

- The only way to get funds at all is to do contracts. This is why they're grindy, especially with the ludicrous R&D upgrade price. Oh you want to spend more than 500 science? And you have 1153? Looks like you'll have to do more of the same and more and more and more and more until you have the money. Cutting the R&D upgrade price by 50% would be a good start.

Alternate ways to make funds would be excellent and would go a long way towards solving the grind of contracts.

[tater]

I'm not sure why they're not. I feel like that was a bad choice and why I think each location should have its own contracts.

Very true. Spamming the contracts with base building around (or on) Duna and Ike just because you've visited Minmus is bizarre. Or satellites there… for what? It should be (again, "Mission," not contracts for some company) more like "place a science orbiter in polar orbit around Duna with these instruments." Something that actually makes sense.

I proposed something similar to this a long time ago, a system where you basically constructed missions. Something I would love to see in this game are mission proposals, where you create a mission and see if anyone is willing to fund you doing it based on their attitudes. i would also like to see the game do exactly what you suggest, reward you for doing the things you were already going to do.

This would be cool. It goes more to some fundamental issues with the KSC that are perhaps semantic. The "Tracking Station" is in fact "Mission Control." What they call "Mission Control" is in fact the contract/planning office. Contracts should be 3d party stuff like "launch our communications satellite for us," and I'd be fine if the payload appeared as a subassembly in the VAB. There needs to be a "Missions" tab where either the player selects from a broad range of available "Explore" type missions, or has a way of creating them as you suggest.

Alternate ways to make funds would be excellent and would go a long way towards solving the grind of contracts.

Yeah. I was surprised no one commented on my suggestion for time-based funds/science payout for certain missions. By setting reasonable periods for the payouts, you create actual control of time passage in KSP without resorting to a build system like KCT. This is a de facto "budget" system. All the explore contracts can be redone to provide monthly funds, instead of up front/completion. If the milestones for all those contracts were expanded (orbital stuff can have rendezvous and docking milestones, etc, etc), then time would tend to pass anyway as you work through them. Some milestones can require spending X days in orbit, then a week or 2, etc.

[CaptainKipard]

I'm going to try something a bit new, and give a main topic of discussion for a week or two. This thread (and any follow on series) is aimed at brainstorming ideas. As such, I welcome any and all ideas, building, branching, or proposing different approaches for the topic at hand.

This thread is making me worried. You're doing this NOW? It's a bit late for brainstorming ideas isn't it? Was this your idea or has it received the blessing of the devs? Maybe I'm misunderstanding completely.

My suggestion: Increase the depth, reduce the grind.

I don't have anything specific really, but try to make things more believable and immersive. I feel so little connection to the tasks given to me. It's just "Go there, Do this". I'm really unable to create a narrative for myself. There has to be something connecting all of my efforts. Contracts should be interdependent maybe. There's no depth, There's just a disjointed load of tasks.

E.g. Why do we have survey missions IRL. To find a landing site. You don't do that in KSP because the game lacks a mechanic that would make it necessary, like different types of ground, or a bunch of rocks which would make landing impossible.

The survey missions are very tedious and all I use them for is to grind.

Testing is really weird too. I don't know what Squad have planned for the new tech tree but if part testing had some consistency with your current technological level that would be...what I would expect in any game.

[Crzyrndm]

I proposed something similar to this a long time ago, a system where you basically constructed missions. Something I would love to see in this game are mission proposals, where you create a mission and see if anyone is willing to fund you doing it based on their attitudes. i would also like to see the game do exactly what you suggest, reward you for doing the things you were already going to do.

That sounds like it would end up as "here's a mission plan, gimme money" since if no additional limitations are applied there is no point in getting multiple offers (player will always take the one which offers the most cash/currency/etc.)

However, that could be easily adapted to "I'm going here, here, and here. What stuff do you want to do on the way/nearby?". Instead of just getting paid to go to Duna, you might have a trip to Duna with an extra bit of payload (for arguments sake, a comsat). You compromise a bit on your plan to get additional funding, but you still get to go to Duna when you want to instead of playing jackpot. Add in some mission proposals (ie. a group of contracts with an obvious goal in mind) and a few randomised contracts like we have now and you could get quite the varied set of objectives without all that much of a change to the current system

[Claw]

I think it's more like this scenario:

Player: "I want to go to Duna. I will need x, y and z parts, which require the 3 million fund R&D upgrade, plus 1 million to build the stuff I have planned. I have 2 million. I guess it's time to take whatever contracts have the best payoff/effort ratio, even though I don't really want to do them."

Something like that. It doesn't matter which ones I do and don't like, the fact that I need to do 20 (randomly picked number) arbitrary contracts without a break to get my facilities to a reasonable level of functionality (lvl2 VAB, lvl2 Pad, lvl2 tracking station, and probably lvl2 R&D) really gets on my nerves to the point where I just give myself enough money to skip that now. Out of 5 restarts I got all four upgraded once. The other four I got bored and went and did something else.

I'm another who'll happily ignore contracts that I don't like, and I enjoy most of the contracts that are available anyway. But it's still grindy as hell.

I like doing satellite launch contracts; I find them easy but interesting, and self-imposed challenges (Can I launch three satellites to three different SOIs off one SRB? How many contracts can I fulfil with just one satellite? Etc.) add to that.

But when it came time to upgrade the R&D building so that I could access spaceplane parts, I found myself having to do twenty satellite missions in a row in order to raise the needed cash. By number 20, the novelty had definitely worn off.

Physical "grind" is reduced by increased pay, or decreased costs.

Perceptual "grind" could be reduced by more variety of available activities.

So one trend I see in the last several pages is not so much that contracts themselves are grindy, but rather things that are forcing the need for funds creates a situation where grinding is necessary. If I'm seeing things right, people would rather spend funds on missions, than crazy high building expenses.

(This is why I let the conversation wander some, and I would say building upgrades are related to contract/career balance.)

So time-based contracts for funds (science/funds per unit time)---the mere existence of them---instantly make time matter with no KCT-like stuff at all. Note that they need not make X funds per minute, and Y science, they'd make maybe 5,000 fund per MONTH, and 0.5 science (or whatever). Yeah, you can warp ahead, but if all the contracts (and the early explore goals at the least) have reasonable time limits, then it is self-defeating. You could take rep hits (assuming it is made to matter) for every X months with no launches, possibly as another mechanism to curtail serious abuse.

I proposed something similar to this a long time ago, a system where you basically constructed missions. Something I would love to see in this game are mission proposals, where you create a mission and see if anyone is willing to fund you doing it based on their attitudes. i would also like to see the game do exactly what you suggest, reward you for doing the things you were already going to do.

That sounds like it would end up as "here's a mission plan, gimme money" since if no additional limitations are applied there is no point in getting multiple offers (player will always take the one which offers the most cash/currency/etc.)

I can see where these are going. A bit in the overhaul category, but still interesting ideas. Definitely changes the feel of career.

Maybe I'm weird but I can't get enough Survey contracts. I can bounce around Minmus all day, and after about an hour I have more science and money than I know what to do with.

Sure I've got to decline a lot of contracts before I get those, but with 2 mods (rejecter and that "quick mods" mod that lets you hit X to reject a specific contract) that is very simple to do and only takes a few seconds. I spend far more time finding OX-STATs in the Utility menu than I ever do canceling contracts.

I guess I'm a bit like this too. I tend to "grind" on contracts that I like, or that are relevant to an upcoming mission I am planning. This is part of the reason why I'm asking about people's perception of balance, since my perspective is a bit different.

This thread is making me worried. You're doing this NOW? It's a bit late for brainstorming ideas isn't it? Was this your idea or has it received the blessing of the devs? Maybe I'm misunderstanding completely.

Please don't be mislead (although I have no idea what you're thinking). I'm sorry if I led you astray, but forum moderators are not squad employees. I do have interests in this thread beyond morbid curiosity. You'll also notice that it's a new month (stickies). I thought I would try something different in this forum for a change, by providing specific discussion that people can get into, in a civilized manner. So far it seems to be working, as I was able to bring up a semi-heated topic which is sparking interesting discussions (imo), but it's not degenerating into bickering.

I also know that some Squad employees do lurk the forums. Providing a focused, concise, and relevant topic (without heated exchange) might be useful, should they stumble into here.

I suppose that being said, I would like to circle back around to specific balance considerations, although I will open the aperture a bit to include building upgrades (since they are an integral piece of career, but uncoupled from tech). Not necessarily that "Building X should cost YYY funds," but the overall impression of the costs (and should it include science or rep?).

Also, the impression that I'm getting with strategies is that they aren't really strategic, and are maybe more of a bank teller system (exchanging one currency for another).

Thank you all for the great discussions!

Cheers,

~Claw

[basic.syntax]

Also, the impression that I'm getting with strategies is that they aren't really strategic, and are maybe more of a bank teller system (exchanging one currency for another).

Yeah, that's what it feels like, despite the effort they went through. Its conversion over time, as contracts are completed - kind of a precedent-setting step toward getting payments over time, as tater and some others are suggesting. (I hadn't thought of it this way until now.)

The game mechanics planned for the Admin Facility in were originally far simpler (somewhat similar to the Market from Age of Empires) and not very interesting overall. We redesigned them into a proper gameplay-enhancing set of mechanics that we are confident will be much more interesting than what we had before, which wasn’t much more than a UI to convert one currency into another.

[CaptainKipard]

Alright. It looks like you're doing a good job staying on top of everything. I've tried to push for some official endorsement of summaries in these threads a while ago, and I did one in the sticky that I took over from Wanderfound for that very purpose. Ted said he appreciates those, so it might be a good idea to start one in your OP before the thread gets too long. You can click the link in my sig for inspiration if you want and here is Ted's post in the discussion I started.

[Invader Myk]

I suppose that being said, I would like to circle back around to specific balance considerations, although I will open the aperture a bit to include building upgrades (since they are an integral piece of career, but uncoupled from tech). Not necessarily that "Building X should cost YYY funds," but the overall impression of the costs (and should it include science or rep?).

What aspects are being balanced by contracts?

From what I can tell the devs were trying to create a balance between are "how far from KSC the player can get" and "how long they are limited to that range."

Why do I believe this? As the tech tree progresses, the tech becomes more powerful and/or efficient engines and larger fuel tanks. Both of which are major factors in how far from KSC you can get, specifically how much fuel you can move around (power and size) and how much fuel you need to move around (efficiency). As the VAB, SPH, runway, and launch pad progress they increase the size of a vehicle that can be launched, again increasing range. As the admin and mission control buildings are improved the speed at which funds are gained is improved. Finally, funds are required for all upgrades, and after all upgrades and research is done, funds is the only currency still needed to play the game with the amount of funds on hand being directly proportional to the range of vessels that can be built.

Building upgrades are a joke (for the purpose of slowing game play) because, as has been noted earlier, Duna missions can be launched with very few building upgrades. To balance the contracts, towards my assumption of what aspects the devs are trying to balance and what they consider balanced, the availability of Science currency should be completely removed from contracts forcing Science harvesting via parts and reports, and the buildings at their various tiers should be more restrictive. Having a tier 1 VAB, launch pad, and R&D should allow just the bare minimum parts available and launchable weight to establish KSO.

What I would consider balanced is a game that is enjoyable to play at all stages. Unfortunately "enjoyable" is a very subjective and variable metric. For me the most enjoyable part of KSP is the exploration aspect. My firsts were immensely enjoyable, my seconds less so. In my current play through I'm taking the "science" parts to all the biomes of every world, not because I need the Science points but because I haven't gotten those reports. I've been playing enough that KSC -> LKO -> docking are grinding aspects of the game, with anything Munar quickly approaching that point. For me, balancing contracts (or anything in the game) would mean pointing out things I haven't done yet and facilitating me accomplishing those things.

[Wanderfound]

I suppose that being said, I would like to circle back around to specific balance considerations, although I will open the aperture a bit to include building upgrades (since they are an integral piece of career, but uncoupled from tech). Not necessarily that "Building X should cost YYY funds," but the overall impression of the costs (and should it include science or rep?).

* Building upgrades are way too expensive.

* Building stages (in both costs and capabilities) are much too coarsely grained. Split it into about ten upgrade stages, with moderate and even capability jumps between them.

* Money -> science strategy is grotesquely overpowered; nerf by at least a factor of ten, probably more.

* Anything -> money strategies are underpowered. Again, a tenfold buff would be a good start.

* Limitations on action group use are unrealistic, limiting and not fun.

* 100% recovery for spaceplanes is overpowered. Add some maintenance/building costs. Ideally, introduce a hangar mechanic to make re-use vs build-new a significant gameplay decision.

* Nukes should be much more expensive. Include the cost of the necessary PR campaign and insurance in the price.

[Superfluous J]

introduce a hangar mechanic to make re-use vs build-new a significant gameplay decision.

This has nothing to do with contracts but YES PLEASE.

[tater]

Maybe kerbals are sort of rational and don't need PR for NTRs

The real problem with Contracts/Missions is that unless there is a player-driven way (as regex suggests) to create custom missions on the fly, they will necessarily become boring/repetitive. Clearly more variety helps, but there is honestly limited variety possible.

How about probe missions?

That would add some variety. They could include scientific gear as if they were part testing (required to be on the probe).

Crasher probe for a body (take high orbit, and low orbit science, then impact target).

Flyby missions? (maybe requires entering SoI of multiple bodies).

Lander.

Rover.

Other, stream of consciousness stuff:

I mentioned it above a wants, but satellite contracts should result in the satellite not being owned by the player. THEN, they can become fodder for follow-on missions:

1. Science removal. "Take science" from a satellite that was required to have an experiment. Perhaps an engineer or scientist of a certain level can reset experiments?

2. Repair. Something is damaged, and requires repair by an engineer.

3. Return to orbit. Have a satellite contract that requires some small motor and fuel, and it needs to be in orbit with at least X fuel remaining. Follow-on mission involves a malfunction that sent it off into an extremely eccentric orbit (crosses mun and minmus orbits, so it might get interesting). Needs to be returned to original orbit. Player gains control of it, and a small amount of fuel remains---excellent piloting might get it back without help, or go grab it and return. Has to be an expensive sat to be worth it.

4. Deorbit. Contracted to remove a defunct sat from orbit (fulfilled by placing in any suborbital trajectory).