Career mode missions worthless?

[basic.syntax]

...whether its worth it to focus on unlocks that can produce more science over regular parts? Or is that getting too meta-game?

Those trade-offs: shall I unlock this before that, may be one reason the tech tree is not grouped "better," according to some complaints. (For ex., the 2.5m Rokomax decoupler is on a different tier than 2.5m Rokomax tanks and engines its supposed to work with, but I found a creative use for it.) Choosing to go after a few 'better' science parts first, instead of more or better rocket parts - is one of the interesting choices you get to make

[klgraham1013]

Those trade-offs: shall I unlock this before that, may be one reason the tech tree is not grouped "better," according to some complaints. (For ex., the 2.5m Rokomax decoupler is on a different tier than 2.5m Rokomax tanks and engines its supposed to work with, but I found a creative use for it.) Choosing to go after a few 'better' science parts first, instead of more or better rocket parts - is one of the interesting choices you get to make

So, you disagree that 2.5m parts should be grouped together because you found a way to use the decoupler without it's natural counterparts?

[juanml82]

If you had a BUDGET (you are KSC, after all), then contracts would be fun additional cash. Contracts are the only mechanism for funding, however. As a result, you have to take at least some, and they are stupid if you bother thinking about them for 5 seconds. If you build a base under contract, you should not use it yourself, for example. When SpaceX launches a satellite, they don't own the satellite, once it is where it is supposed to be, they wash their hands of it.

If you have to think about them as anything other than what they are at face value, company X paying you to launch something, then the system needs work.

In a way, the "visit Duna" type of contracts are the "budget". NASA and all the other space agencies don't get a "budget" as in "take all this money and do what you want with it" but have legislative or executive powers deciding what they'll do and what they won't. "Visit the Mun", take all this cash upfront and all this on completion is the game equivalent of the Apollo Program. Capturing asteroids is the asteroid redirect program, satellite contracts might be commercial satellites or science satellites and so on.

And, in the meantime, your Space Program can work as a commercial venture by selling flight tickets to tourists, rescuing stranded astronauts from the other space agency none knows anything about (hey, someone has to send those astronauts there) and anything else that looks like commerce.

Thanks for all the responses guys! It seems to me that I should be more picky about which contracts I take and perhaps I should consider dialing up the science/cash rewards in the difficulty selector. I've always kind of been a "vanilla" mode purist who hates changing any sliders but perhaps I should make an exception in order to avoid the "grind" and keep moving ahead in the game.

Sounds like the contracts get more interesting/doable towards the mid game as well. So far I've achieved Orbit and all that but haven't gone to the Mun so I'd say I'm still in the early game. Really looking forward to unlocking more parts and designing more complex ships, anyone have an opinion on double science rewards? I saw one fellow suggest it but I don't want to unlock everything too fast either. I guess what I'm asking is do most of you use normal 100% science rewards? If so, was it a grind?

Thanks again for the responses/help, I really appreciate it! I should'ave known a game like this would have a knowledgeable and helpful community!

I usually cheat money to pay the later building upgrades.

Also, on unlocking parts, you can use part contracts for that: for instance, you get a contract to test the nuclear engines, you don't complete it - instead, you have the nuclear engine to use in whatever ship you design.

In theory I don't feel like that, but in practice I tend to start losing interest very soon after I do unlock the whole tree. For one thing, I get so used to flying missions in order to pull all the science out of one biome or even multiple biomes. Then once science is "done", I start wondering what to do when I visit a body. If I'm not there to suck up all the science I can, what am I there for?

I hate to say it again and again, but the Contracts need a MAJOR overhaul.

Absolutely

- - - Updated - - -

So, you disagree that 2.5m parts should be grouped together because you found a way to use the decoupler without it's natural counterparts?

Or part contracts should award all the necessary parts: test a 2.5 engine, then also make one 2.5 fuel tank available. Test the ion engine, then make at least one xenon tank available, etc.

[basic.syntax]

So, you disagree that 2.5m parts should be grouped together because you found a way to use the decoupler without it's natural counterparts?

hehe. I am "neutral" on this. I understand the simple logic of grouping the parts on the same tier, but, Squad clearly did not group the part, even after they did move the round-8 back in the tree to a more appropriate place, in 1.0.1. So I think the 2.5m decoupler has been consciously placed where it is, not "fixed" while other parts were being "fixed," and Squad hasn't said a word about this placement. Not knowing Squad's reasons, if I agreed with their placement decision, it might be for a different reason (I figured out a way to make use of it with other parts on its tier and below,) than they chose.

[Tourist]

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the contracts system. You do need to be efficient with you missions though. As many here have described by combining contracts. Also my personal favourite thing is to try to do everything I can reusable. For instance, satellite launches around Kerbin I try to do from spaceplanes, returning the probe once the mission is complete by parachute.

However while I don't think there is anything "wrong" with the system, does not mean they could not be improved. For instance the "insane" contracts, probably could do with being dialled back just a little from insane, to challenging. I'd also like ambitious multi-stage contracts.... not sure if its possible for such a thing to be programmed and work reliably. To demonstrate what I mean, a "simple" multistage contract would be setting up a comms network, requiring multiple satellites at specified orbits/etc. The televised Mun landing mission, requiring comms satillites, survey mission, staged progress to landing (1 ship suborbital, 1 ship on a free return, 1 ship mun orbital, landing.) The rewards for these complex missions should be significant, recognising the effort required.

[tater]

The lack of grouping by size is absurd. It is just idiotic that you get a 2.5m engine, and nothing else to make it useful. Technology doesn't appear in a vacuum. Here's an F-1 to use with your firework stand bottle rocket---please test it on the moon for us.

[regex]

Here's an F-1 to use with your firework stand bottle rocket---please test it on the moon for us.

lawl. This pretty much describes how terrible career mode is to a T. At least it's not so grindy in 1.0.4.

[samstarman5]

I have no doubt the contracts and tech tree will see more tweaking down the road as more ideas come along(1.1 is promising some). But it should be accepted that there will not be a perfect system. You are not going to like everything that is done. Just sitting with your arms crossed complaining or scoffing about it will not change anything. Keep in mind that KSP is a rocketry simulator that carries with it a certain insanity. There are bound to be silly contracts, as there should be. If there is a need to explain how rescue contracts come to be, make it up yourself. I get the feeling that a good portion of them aren't so much rescues as they are appropriations. When you rescue a kerbal, you are pressing them into service with the KSC, and there is no going home for them. It may sound sinister, but it definitely adds a lot of flavor to the game.

I rather enjoy the contracts offered. There are enough offered to help shape how you want to run your space program. I, myself, don't prefer the test contracts much so I tend to avoid them. I may take on one or two if they play in with the next mission I intend to fly to help at least pay for that if not also go towards KSC upgrades, but I do run my space program with a generous budget, with extra funds paid out for contracts. If for some reason the current list of contracts offered don't appeal, I can always just run my own missions for a bit until a new list appears. Right now I am sitting on a lot of available tech, while having been to the Mun and back, and I am not getting any contracts to go to Minmus. I figure right now no companies are interested in that, so for the time being I can do some low-budget science missions to gather data from the poles and desert. By the time those are done I am pretty sure there will be finally some interest in flooding the market in mint ice cream.

There are a lot of options to be had, and choices to make. What doesn't make sense to you will work for another player. Expecting contracts that cater to your own needs only is singular-minded and unfair to others. There is plenty of room for more contracts to be added to the game, and that should actually work better for everyone. I actually wouldn't mind if Squad did a little contest for contract submissions that would be added to the game. I hope that many here would want to participate in that.

Thanks for all the responses guys! It seems to me that I should be more picky about which contracts I take and perhaps I should consider dialing up the science/cash rewards in the difficulty selector. I've always kind of been a "vanilla" mode purist who hates changing any sliders but perhaps I should make an exception in order to avoid the "grind" and keep moving ahead in the game.

Sounds like the contracts get more interesting/doable towards the mid game as well. So far I've achieved Orbit and all that but haven't gone to the Mun so I'd say I'm still in the early game. Really looking forward to unlocking more parts and designing more complex ships, anyone have an opinion on double science rewards? I saw one fellow suggest it but I don't want to unlock everything too fast either. I guess what I'm asking is do most of you use normal 100% science rewards? If so, was it a grind?

Thanks again for the responses/help, I really appreciate it! I should'ave known a game like this would have a knowledgeable and helpful community!

It doesn't hurt to up the penalty as well, if you do up the fund and/or science reward. I ramp up the reputation penalty bigtime to make sure I do pay attention to missions. If a kerbal dies, then the reputation takes a big hit, which then effects what contracts become available.

There are some other options to adding a certain balance to your game so you don't feel like you are just turning on god-mode. It is worth trying it out and see what works for you.

Edited July 15, 2015 by samstarman5

[Jouni]

The contracts feel like my inbox: some interesting content mixed with a lot of work-related spam.

The tech tree seems quite random. I would prefer having fewer nodes and a more logical structure. For example, the 2.5 m rocket parts could be grouped in the following way:

Tier n: Large rockets: Basic 2.5 m parts, including fuel tanks, decoupler, separator, nose cone, fairings, service bay, structural adapters, and bi-/tri-/quad-adapter.

Tier n+1: Large engines: Poodle, Skipper.

Tier n+1: Large utility parts: 2.5 m utility parts, such as probe cores, batteries, reaction wheels, and monopropellant tanks. Also the 2.5 m to 1.25 m fuel tank adapters.

Tier n+2: Even bigger engines: Mainsail, Twin-Boar.

The first node gives you the structural means to build 2.5 m rockets, but no parts designed specifically for them. You can build large rockets, but they will look like quick hacks that are approaching the limits of what can be achieved without further technological advances. On the next tier, one node represents those advances, giving you engines that outperform clusters of 1.25 m engines. Another nodes gives you utility parts that fit directly into a 2.5 m stack without a service bay, representing the incremental work to make large rockets more practical. On the tier after that, you get even more powerful engines, representing further advances in engine technology.

[percyPrune]

The contracts feel like my inbox:...

/\/\/\ Deffo!

In one of my first posts I said that I didn't play career because it felt too much like work. Having now played career it is EXACTLY like work. I work for a subcontractor IRL (Civils) and you wouldn't believe the daft project enquiries we get from customers. Especially the cheapskates who want us to build the Moon for sixpence - and have it ready to ship by noon tomorrow.

In KSP I always accept rescue missions on humanitarian grounds (*cough* free crew *cough*) but anyone with a harebrained scheme can find another mug to lose money on it, thank you. Business is business!

At least in KSP I don't have to be polite to them when I suggest they go somewhere else

[PB666]

I wouldn't. Science rewards are better (multiplier effect) the farther out you go, if you haven't been to the Mun and Minimus, it's understandable that Science will feel really grindy. You really need to get there, and back a few times. Do all the EVA's and run all the science packages you can in every situation: in orbit, flying low, landed. It's hard to see biome/region boundaries, but each one is another science opportunity; every huge crater on the Mun is a different one. EVA in low orbit will tell you what you are over, and the surface scanner (when you get it unlocked) while landed.

Uh, Science is really grindy on the Mun and Minmus, also. 24 landing and take offs in the first round and another 24 in the second round. That's almost 50 landing and takeoff missions. Try landing at the Muns northern polar lowlands (the exact north pole) that will take the grind out of it, lol.

But yeah this is right, with the stipulation that you are going to have to do a fair amount of Kerbin science before you have enough science to safely land on the mun with all the bells and whistles.

And at some point you are going to really wish you had a set of WHEELS (training wheels, a donkey cart, a used shopping cart that any bum would push around, a canistoga wagon, roman chariot, an oxcart - this would be a hint for Squad)

[KingPhantom]

i like the "get science from" missions. i place satellites and lander probes on the bodies... the first time you don't get much but after them you can accept every contract and send data from orbit or surface for the full money

[X-SR71]

It seems the thread took a turn at discussing the tech tree.

Keeping on topic though, be picky with contracts. Go for the easy ones with good rewards. It's a bit grindy early in the career, and quickly gets easier when you leave satellites to fetch those 'transmit science from..' contracts. Soon money won't be a problem.

On a side note, I just got a 'Splash a vessel down on Laythe's ocean' contract was like 'hell yeah thats a fun one!!!' 500k reward too!

[monstah]

** <KSP ROOT>/GameData/Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg **

        AverageAvailableContracts = 30

E: I daresay that, alone, would help quite a bit with contract tedium.

Whoa, this thread grew considerably fast.

As for this advice, not only do I endorse it, I can testify it works as a MM patch file, too. I'll post the exact contents when i get home from work, but it's just a couple lines.

[Terwin]

If there is a need to explain how rescue contracts come to be, make it up yourself. I get the feeling that a good portion of them aren't so much rescues as they are appropriations. When you rescue a kerbal, you are pressing them into service with the KSC, and there is no going home for them. It may sound sinister, but it definitely adds a lot of flavor to the game.

I always figured it was hobbyists who got in over their heads(Bill, Bob, Jeb and Val started in their 'barn' and their success has inspired other Kerbals with an interest in space to start their own programs, some with less success(LKO rescue) then others(Landed Mun Rescue)).

Not quite sure how they managed to signal home that they needed a rescue though... might be their mothers/families watched in horror as they crashed then called the KSC administration building for help...

I don't know about you, but if I was building rockets in my back yard, got stuck in orbit and NASA came to rescue me, then NASA asked if I wanted to work for them as an astronaut, I would most likely say yes...

[klgraham1013]

hehe. I am "neutral" on this. I understand the simple logic of grouping the parts on the same tier, but, Squad clearly did not group the part, even after they did move the round-8 back in the tree to a more appropriate place, in 1.0.1. So I think the 2.5m decoupler has been consciously placed where it is, not "fixed" while other parts were being "fixed," and Squad hasn't said a word about this placement. Not knowing Squad's reasons, if I agreed with their placement decision, it might be for a different reason (I figured out a way to make use of it with other parts on its tier and below,) than they chose.

I'd love to know their reasoning. To me, it just looks like they don't understand how to make a tech tree. It's not a criticism against your reasoning. Just me being critical. You have to prove you can create a decent tech tree before I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

The lack of grouping by size is absurd. It is just idiotic that you get a 2.5m engine, and nothing else to make it useful. Technology doesn't appear in a vacuum. Here's an F-1 to use with your firework stand bottle rocket---please test it on the moon for us.

We need fan art of this.

Edited July 15, 2015 by klgraham1013

[tater]

Making a good tech tree is very hard in KSP because almost every tech in the game was concurrently developed in a handful of years in the real world, it's not really a progression.

In addiiton, in KSP you do spaceflight to develop tech, whereas in the actual world, you develop tech to do spaceflight/science. It is completely backwards in KSP.

You should instead get a budget of funds, and "research" coinage for a given mission. Then you choose carefully what to develop to do the mission. That derails the only reward system, though.

[klgraham1013]

Making a good tech tree is very hard in KSP because almost every tech in the game was concurrently developed in a handful of years in the real world, it's not really a progression.

In addiiton, in KSP you do spaceflight to develop tech, whereas in the actual world, you develop tech to do spaceflight/science. It is completely backwards in KSP.

You should instead get a budget of funds, and "research" coinage for a given mission. Then you choose carefully what to develop to do the mission. That derails the only reward system, though.

A basic ladder is still considered advanced tech. Wheels are late game. This is not because tech trees are difficult to make.

[tater]

A basic ladder is still considered advanced tech. Wheels are late game. This is not because tech trees are difficult to make.

True enough. That's just because... reasons.

I meant in general, though. I think the tree should be massively parallel if stuck with the current system.

[Edax]

A basic ladder is still considered advanced tech. Wheels are late game. This is not because tech trees are difficult to make.

The reason wheels are late game is because the test vehicles kept flipping over. Eventually the development team ran out of money trying to solve the problem and just released the wheels anyway. (When you think on it, NASA only introduce the concept of the rover very late in the Apollo program so in a way that tech tree reflects history, even though it doesn't really make any logical sense.)

[Captain H@dock]

i like the "get science from" missions. i place satellites and lander probes on the bodies... the first time you don't get much but after them you can accept every contract and send data from orbit or surface for the full money

On the subject of easy money contract, the solar station are the nicest... You get paid hundreds of thousands just to launch straight up to the edge of the SOI...

If the "science from" are the slow and steady revenue ones, the solar orbits are the equivalent of robbing a bank....

[Edax]

On the subject of easy money contract, the solar station are the nicest... You get paid hundreds of thousands just to launch straight up to the edge of the SOI...

If the "science from" are the slow and steady revenue ones, the solar orbits are the equivalent of robbing a bank....

And those station almost always end up being useless. Can't we just convert them to space-hotels and rent out all the free slots out to some long-term tourists for some monthly income?

[tater]

On the subject of easy money contract, the solar station are the nicest... You get paid hundreds of thousands just to launch straight up to the edge of the SOI...

If the "science from" are the slow and steady revenue ones, the solar orbits are the equivalent of robbing a bank....

A perfect example of a really dumb contract.

Space stations should be Missions, and mostly not done for 3d parties. If it was a budget item, there would be no money given for it as it has no purpose.

[Superfluous J]

You guys are doing the station missions wrong. You don't build a solar station and send it up there to do nothing.

You take a contract to put a station in orbit of Kerbin, another to put a similar station in orbit of Sun, and a third to put one in orbit of or landed on wherever you're going (let's say Ike).

Then you take one station along with whatever you were sending anyway, and you get those contracts automatically just by doing the mission.

Then you leave it behind because really it's a huge waste of dV

[mikegarrison]

You guys are doing the station missions wrong. You don't build a solar station and send it up there to do nothing.

You take a contract to put a station in orbit of Kerbin, another to put a similar station in orbit of Sun, and a third to put one in orbit of or landed on wherever you're going (let's say Ike).

Then you take one station along with whatever you were sending anyway, and you get those contracts automatically just by doing the mission.

Then you leave it behind because really it's a huge waste of dV

Sometimes a "station" is just anything that can fit five Kerbals, has power and antenna, and has a docking port. That pretty much defines any ship I ever use after the early game. So I especially look for "station" contracts that can be met by a ship I was going to send anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

But yeah this is right, with the stipulation that you are going to have to do a fair amount of Kerbin science before you have enough science to safely land on the mun with all the bells and whistles.

On the other hand, you don't need much science at all to land on the Mun or (especially) Minmus, if you are willing to forgo the bells, whistles, and safety.

- - - Updated - - -

hehe. I am "neutral" on this. I understand the simple logic of grouping the parts on the same tier, but, Squad clearly did not group the part, even after they did move the round-8 back in the tree to a more appropriate place, in 1.0.1. So I think the 2.5m decoupler has been consciously placed where it is, not "fixed" while other parts were being "fixed," and Squad hasn't said a word about this placement. Not knowing Squad's reasons, if I agreed with their placement decision, it might be for a different reason (I figured out a way to make use of it with other parts on its tier and below,) than they chose.

It's just to make a working 2.5m rocket more expensive (in science). That's all.

A more logical tech tree would give you all the rocket fuel tanks in one node. Decouplers, though, would all be in another node. Etc.

What I would really prefer would be a tech tree (and contract system, to stay on topic) where you actually get BETTER parts. Your low tech parts could be heavy, for instance, while your later tech parts (of the same size) would be lighter. That sort of thing. I think it would work better. You would still need to progress farther and farther into the tech tree in order to do bigger and bigger missions, because a mission to Jool should need more efficient hardware than a mission to the Mun. It shouldn't just need the same stuff in bigger sizes.