Contracts and Administration Strategies

[Whirligig Girl]

* 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.

So instead of building a spaceplane (presumably out of the parts that you had) each time, you save a spaceplane in the hangar in whatever state it was when you left it, and then you can edit it as a ship, but removing parts costs money too, unlike when you build a new ship. Placing parts would still be important if you wanted to overhaul a plane, and especially if you wanted to add cargo.

Meanwhile, building new ships would not only assign a cost to parts, but to the joints between them, and then another price for the cost of running the VAB's machinery such as cranes and lifts and trucks. So a ship that costs 10000 funds might add a 70 to 90 fund increase due to the part assembly, and a times 0.123 or so to that from the VAB. The assembly modifier might improve with the tier of the VAB, but of course, that would further putting the difficulty curve in the wrong direction.

So while you could salvage all of the parts from a crashed rocket that broke into pieces, even at the KSC, the parts recovery value of 99% wouldn't mean you could put it all back together for the same price. Recovering a big rocket that's still put together would keep the funds for the part joints, but it wouldn't be able to be reassembled in the VAB as easily, since you're still assembling them out of parts.

Or you could just take the fully assembled bit and save it in the hangar, where you can relaunch it with little to no extra servicing costs, except that you can not just take in broken parts.

I figure there would have to be a saving mechanic so that if you break off some parts of your ship, you could rebuild them exactly in the hangar. Saving would also be useful for designs where you fine tune the fuel tanks and you need just the right amount in them at launch. Fueling cost would of course be added on to servicing cost.

Building payloads would probably be done in the VAB. Once you've built a payload, you can instantly transfer it to the Hangar, but for the same cost as building and launching it. Then you can place it however you want. Perhaps placing a part directly onto a ship in the hangar might cost more than in the VAB, unless you are using a docking port. The difference being that taking OFF parts would also have a cost compared to the saved ship. I think that if you use a docking port though, no placement cost at all should be added to the craft, because you're just putting together pieces. It doesn't cost anything to dock two existing ships in space, so it shouldn't cost much to put them together in the Hangar.

Similarly there might be a need to take a recovered spacecraft and put it on a non-reusable launch vehicle (Space Shuttles!). So you could then take a ship out of the hangar and put it in the VAB with no extra building or assembly costs, and then build out a launcher for it. The thing would be that you couldn't change anything in the shuttle at all, it would be it's own part for all intents and purposes in the VAB.

TL;DR: Build once, launch as many times as you want.

And there's another thing: Gus gets way more strategies. For instance, maybe you could have a strategy that takes away from VAB costs but in exchange makes hangars more expensive to use, would be great if you're running a big-dumb-booster powered space program.

Edited March 4, 2015 by GregroxMun

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I just want to say KUDOS to the Contract(s) Modders...I have yet to make Resource Contracts...ugh !

Cmdr Zeta

[tater]

This subject came up in another thread, and as I posted there, this thread started to languish a little, and I think it's because we have no idea what Squad is planning on doing, or even what is on the table. I think there are good ideas here, and not all from the same POV, so it could be very useful. It would be nice to see someone actually working on it chime in. Even if the direction they chose is not what some of us consider ideal, we could at least drive the conversation in the direction of way is actually going to happen.

Fine Print added some OK stuff, but it doesn't change the fundamental problem with career. Right now the contract system requires the player to try and invent a context for seemingly (and actually) random missions/contracts.

I harp on Mission (your own program) vs Contract (doing something for a 3d party), and want that separation from a storytelling sense. People can argue "open ended" all they like, but if the "contract" says that X corp wants you to build a base, it requires that the player intentionally ignore what the contract actually says if he/she continues to to use the facility, or even mans it (since you explicitly built it for someone else). There is no point in have a contract come from some 3d party entity if none get treated as belonging to a 3d party, it requires the player to actively ignore something he has specifically been told.

Any new mission/contract ideas can be interesting, but often they are interesting… once. After that, a grind, or something to ignore. Many extant contracts are absurd (the parts testing with no reasonable context, which is over 90% of them). FP added some that are just as absurd---landing asteroids? Really?

The basic paradigm now that for game difficulty, "hard = lower funds/rewards" is just a grind slider. Adding hoops to jump through on contracts is often not harder, just "more tedious." The fundamental problem is that things are not actually ever more difficult, the same equipment/skills are used, all that is needed for different mission profiles in more dv (obviously some manned missions are actually harder to build for, like manned Eve, etc). This is even true just looking at "management" which honestly isn't a thing now, it just isn't.

So what would make difficulty levels actually matter? What would make contracts feel like less of a grind, or less repetitive? What would eliminate the early game grind of upgrades, particularly for players who have a clue already?

I think time needs to matter. Somehow. Either KCT-like, or possibly a mechanism like the one I suggested above, to pay funds out over the expiration time frame of a given mission (KSC mission, not "contract"). Missions then become "budget" items, and contracts are a short term bolus of funds. Eliminate dumb contracts. Obvious, but needs to be said. Facility upgrades? Perhaps finer grained control of facility upgrades. More steps that cost less.

I'd Separate commercial contracts for 3d parties from those your own program employees suggest. Many of the current contracts need to be "mission suggestions" internal to your program. Odd station ideas make no sense from 3d parties, particularly when you get to own them. Same mission from your own program makes far more sense than trying to explain in your own head why some company is giving you large sums to build a station for them---then they give it to you. Go over the extant contracts and make sure they make sense. Putting a satellite in X orbit should make some sense instead of being a random parameter. Why, matters from a story telling POV.

They talked of "tycoon" or other management level issues, but there are not any right now. Management implies time to me. A budget, costs for having astronauts, if they are used right now or drinking coffee at KSC. I'm not saying I want to be bothered with that, but that's the implication. Even if really abstracted so we don't have to be bored with it, it would make some sense to consider. Honestly, some stuff should be done autonomously by kerbals themselves. Many hate this idea, but the concept of a "manage a space program" game combined with "the player has to individually control every step a single astronaut takes" makes no sense. If you set up a facility on the Mun, and it requires "scheduled service" it would be nice if you could design craft for that mission, assign astronauts to do those missions, and they would just happen on a schedule (obviously time would have to actually matter, and it doesn't at all right now). Any failures (which would be nice to have) would present fun mission opportunities for the player (rescues, repairs, etc).

[Kelderek]

My #1 issue with contracts is that they are the only way to make funds. I think the spending of funds in career is fine, it's the earning of funds that needs some alternatives. Ideally there would be 2 or 3 different ways that you could earn funds, with contracts just being one of those means.

My personal favorite option would be achievement/milestone based funds. As you complete achievements, you gain bonus funds based on the difficulty or effort required. If you have collected science data from 10 different biomes you get X funds, you would get even more funds once you collect science data from 50 different biomes. The achievements could include all of the events that currently used for Kerbal XP: flyby, orbit, flag planting, etc. The difference with this sort of setup would be that you get no funds up front, only after you complete the achievement, but it also means that as you do nearly any activity in the game you will gradually complete various achievements naturally over time. Other achievements might be more specific and can represent fun challenges to attempt (return a surface sample from Eve for example). In general, this method of funding allows for a greater deal of freedom to explore and wander, knowing that you will gain funds naturally as you play.

I also like the idea of some sort of government funding budget, assuming we can balance it around time warp issues. The main point is I want multiple ways to earn funds, with contracts as only one of those options. With multiple options then you can play the way you want and not be forced to doing it one way in order to proceed.

As for science, I am of the opinion that the ONLY way to earn science should be recovering or transmitting the data from your spacecraft. This means ZERO science from contracts or from strategies. I'm not really sure there's a good place for strategies in this game at all - I do not like strategies that relate to funds, science or reputation, but I could imagine strategies that affect your usable parts and their stats and effectiveness. There have been good examples in this thread already for strategies that affect things apart from funds, science and reputation.

[CaLVin-K]

Part test contracts that require you to take the part through a certain flight regime, such as run the LV-N atomic motor for 30 seconds between 10km and 15km between 200m/s and 500m/s. In addition to being more realistic these contracts would actually require a bit more thinking and planing than the currnet, strap a sold onto a part and wait until all the boxes are checked and then hit the space bar type part test contracts.

[Mr. Scruffy]

I agree with the notion of seperating ´missions´ from ´contracts´. The former should basically just be a list of milestone things (alt-records, 1st time SoI / orbit / landing - that kind of stuff) that you can complete at any time, without choosing which you are planing to do next. By and large, the main reward for these would be REP, plus a little extra funds. ´Contracts´ otoh would, in tendency, reward the player with funds and a little bit of REP.

I also very much agree with the notion of more (less? more tiers) granular steps in building upgrades. In another thread i compared the grind involved with World of Tanks and for the science building, it´s the equivalent of starting out on tier VI or so, trying to get to VII. And the total road block that is the low tiers buildings restriction is probably not the most fortunate choice of parameter to upgrade in it, either, even if ´time´ is not on the table. A simple science cost multiplier (tier 0 -> 200%, tier 1 -> 180%, or something like that) would probably be better and might keep science valuable for longer within a game, keeping it so throughout: The early, easy, launch pad sciences wont get you as far in the beginning, you dont hit brick walls rendering science temporarily unimportant (until you can afford the next upgrade) mid game and the tree might last a tad longer end game.

I also agree that science should exclusively come from ´doing science´ - exceptions may confirm this rule, but they should really be exceptions.

Another point i agree with is ´contract-chains´. I dont know how many of you have played paradox games (europa universalis, crusader kings f.e.) but for those who did, think event-chains. Or the good old Panzer General campaign. Depending on how well you do on a specific contract (say there is one primary objective and a secondary one - depending on weather you managed both or just one and which, or none) or even on how you solved a specific given problem, there could logical follow-ups. ´chain´ is actually sort a misnomer - it would be more like ´trees´ with branches.

Testing contracts should, imho, only crop up for parts, that you have the tech unlocked for, but not the part itself, and the benefit would be gaining free access for this part and maybe a small contigent of it for you to use for free. I find it sort of debatable, though, if the conditions for these tests really have to make sense on first sight. Sure, testing landing gear on high orbit seems pointless at first, but it might be about its durability in space, not about the actual use of it up there, but rather how well it perform on the ground afterwards. So: Probably there can be all sorts of funny condidions, as long as they are concluded with an actual meaningful test, that makes sense for practical purposes. As in: Bring the landing gear up into vacuum and then land on it, too! Or: Bring a jet engine to the mun alright, but the actual test takes place back in some sort of oxygen atmosphere (point being to see if it still works properly after the journey). It shouldnt be too hard (i guess) defining meaningful test-conclusions within reasonable parameters - if those are always at the end of such a test, whatever apparently wierd stuff you have to do with it before this seems a lot more plausible.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Mr. Scruffy

[Vectura]

For me, personally, one little change that I would like is to have satellites pre-made in some file somewhere for the satellite contracts. When you accept the contract, the satellite is added to your subassembly list. When it is complete, it gets removed from the list.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Yeah, that´s a good one, too, vectura. They could come in different predefined sizes and weights as well (info given in the contract offer, of course)

[tater]

A few ideas for the rescue missions since 1.0 (or maybe 1.1 given the other thread) is supposed to add the kerbals with capsules, etc.

All rescue missions should have much more critical time limits.

1 star difficulty would be a kerbal in a capsule or other hab part in Kerbin SoI. The accept by and expiry dates would be in XX days (6 hour days, right?) and would be identical. If you wait a long time to accept, you have less time to rescue the guy.

2 star would be the same as 1, but with a shorter date range. Lone astronauts possible here, but the date range to accept, then complete for any kerbal without a pod should be TINY. Once you accept, you need to rescue him ASAP or fail. Set the time limit such that rendezvous must be within a few orbits, max. If lone kerbals are a thing on the Mun, etc, then those contracts should basically be impossible unless you have a craft nearby already.

3 star would be on bodies outside Kerbin SoI, and possibly stranded kerbals (no pod) but with the date range set so short you need to rescue on the first orbit.

Adding time limits in some way would actually make these missions challenging.

[WanderingKid]

I have not read this entire thread, I'm sorry. This is more a response to the earliest and latest posts, in particular Claw's request. If I'm duplicating or saying something that got hashed and destroyed, my bad.

As a few of you know, I'm running a Hard Career as a Let's Play. Much of my experience is documented there, though I don't show the 'grind'.

And my gods, there's a lot of grind, so, to the specific questions on contracts and administration:

Administration is both overpowered, and useless. As mentioned, the elephant is Outsourced R&D. It's far too powerful a strategy and lets you clear the science tree in just a few missions until you rebuild the funds to upgrade the actual R&D Center. Outside of that particular strategy, it's a useless building. The only time you really find yourself going back into it is after you've completed the tech tree and you might as well get SOMETHING useful out of your continuing science intake, so you flip on Science->Funds at max%. Up until this point, no other strategy is useful or strong enough to be worthy of consideration, especially with REP being weird.

For contracts, a few things. Some of which I brought up in another thread for quality of life improvements for contracts.

You can find those suggestions here and they're mostly interface/removal concerns to strip out undesired contracts and for organization: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112723-Quality-of-Life-Improvements-for-Contracts

Contracts, generally, need to be decided what their final purpose is. If they're meant to be a means for fund generation, they need to actually do this better. Getting disposable parts tests (separator contracts) that are worth less than the part is pointless. While yes, this is a sliding scale where on Easy they pay more and on Hard they don't, they simply shouldn't show up in Hard then.

If contracts are meant to be challenge generators, then they actually need to be challenging, and an alternate form of Funds income needs to be investigated. As an example, I currently fish for Solar Stations simply to send up 5 man suicides, destruct them, and do it again, just grinding for cash. If I can wing it around the Mun for an extra contract, even better.

In the end, though, I don't want science to be based purely on biome research. I want contracts to generate science. I personally don't think science gear should be attached to anything unless someone actually needs the particular data. Simply Science Bombing Mun is quite doable, but silly. Now we have tons of data that no one actually cares about.

However, I'd flip the current technique. Create Science development contracts that are different than the funds generation ones. The primary purpose of science is to create new equipment. We have tons of these 'worthless' parts testing contracts. Use those as science generators. Rover missions for temperature data on a foreign planet, science data. You want a comms satellite in Keosynchronous orbit? Cough up da Funds, baby.

In general, though, there needs to be an expectation review from the dev team as to what THEY want these things to do. Right now they're simply a mashup of an idea that seems like a test for "Huh, I wonder what will work?". It's hard to make recommendations that AREN'T an overhaul when we don't know the direction they want for simple tweaks.

[tater]

Just a note on stations/bases. They have to be able to HOLD X kerbals, but there is zero requirement you actually man them. I have taken a few of those, and I have NTRs on them. Place them in solar orbit… satisfy contract, then put them in orbit someplace, just in case (say Duna) since I use life support.