Declining contracts in 1.0.5 career mode now costs you rep?

[Johnny Wishbone]

Things have been busy, so I just now got my hands on 1.0.5. Started a new career and discover to my chagrin that declining contracts now costs you rep. Personally, I think this is ridiculous and really breaks career mode for me. I have been one of the biggest supporters of career mode since it was introduced (despite the many flaws with it), but I now find my enthusiasm for playing it to be pretty much gone. I see no reason why I should take a reputation hit because I want to pick and choose the contracts I want. Who runs a business this way? "I'm sorry, but we don't like your company because you explicitly turn down contracts that you don't want to do instead of ignoring them for days/weeks/months and letting them expire." This is a really dumb gameplay feature and I'm not sure what Squad was trying to accomplish with this; you're punishing the user for wanting to play the game their way.

Just like the tech tree, the contract system is a good idea with a very poor implementation. Adding in ridiculous constraints like this aren't making it better.

For those of you who read this far and are ready to fire off a response about "complaining", please go pound sand. Offering criticism is not complaining. I like this game very much and want it to be better than this. The contract system doesn't need this gameplay element.

[Motokid600]

The contextual contracts were supposed to alleviate that. As for the penalty itself... I think it's waranted because it does get ridiculous. At one point you have to decline thirty contracts before you find one that related to what you want to do.

Squad used the term "slot machine" and that's exactly how it was. So the penalty is necessary. Not to say it could use further refining.

The entire career/contract system is a bit, well... I could write a book.

[Kerbart]

Given the random nature of the contracts that sounds like a bad idea. There are many contracts I decline because they are insane, loss-giving*, or both.

Yes, you can and should combine multiple contracts in one mission. But testing component Y between 18000-25000 ASL and a velocity of 200-500m/s is hard to combine with "at an escape trajectory".

[Torgo]

You can adjust the rep penalty when starting a new game.

If you're in a current game, find this line in your persistence file:

RepLossDeclined = 1

And set it to:

RepLossDeclined = 0

[Johnny Wishbone]

You can adjust the rep penalty when starting a new game.

If you're in a current game, find this line in your persistence file:

RepLossDeclined = 1

And set it to:

RepLossDeclined = 0

Yeah, I know. You can change a lot of the game by editing files. My point was more that it shouldn't be there to begin with. It doesn't make any sense and it really doesn't add anything except unnecessary difficulty (and grind by forcing the player to take contracts they otherwise wouldn't care to). From a gameplay perspective, you're punishing the player. From a realism perspective, it's just dumb; nobody would run a business that way. And from my personal perspective, it takes away fun.

[Kelderek]

Well this explains why I now have 0 rep on my new career - I had cycled through a bunch of contracts last night before logging off and never noticed the penalty.

Squad used the term "slot machine" and that's exactly how it was. So the penalty is necessary. Not to say it could use further refining.

This is not a good solution to the "slot machine" problem, especially not for a normal mode career. If you consider how many possible variations of contracts can pop up now along with how few are actually available at any given moment, it is entirely to be expected that we would want to cycle through the list to find something different. To apply a penalty just doesn't make any sense - maybe in one of the harder game modes, but definitely not in a normal career.

Looks like I need to go tweak my persistence file and maybe use the debug menu to add back in some rep.

[Torgo]

Yeah, I know. You can change a lot of the game by editing files. My point was more that it shouldn't be there to begin with. It doesn't make any sense and it really doesn't add anything except unnecessary difficulty (and grind by forcing the player to take contracts they otherwise wouldn't care to). From a gameplay perspective, you're punishing the player. From a realism perspective, it's just dumb; nobody would run a business that way. And from my personal perspective, it takes away fun.

It's an option. You can choose to turn it off if you don't like it. It would be nice if it was a bit easier in existing games to turn it off, but it can still be done. For new games, you can turn it up or off at your choice.

You also have the option to let contracts you don't want to take expire and be replaced, hopefully with better ones. I'm trying that route in a current game. It means I don't always have a load of new contracts that I'd want, which means being more judicious in checking for new contracts. Not everyone would like to play like that. Bully for them. I've turned the penalty off in my longer standing existing game.

You may not like it as a game mechanic, which is fine. You can remove it from your game. Others may like it, or think a 1 point deduction isn't harsh enough. Also fine.

[WinkAllKerb'']

From a gameplay perspective, you're punishing the player. From a realism perspective, it's just dumb; nobody would run a business that way.

from a it's just dumb perspective: business often is, ... i mean just dumb ... SPACE

Edit: i really don't see why something should be shown less dumb in ksp than it is in real nowdays life, i mean it's about serious thing after all, not selfish interest ; ) i mean g20 is soon and all should remind that climate changes never existed thoose last 20 years ; ) and now kind of magic they exists ... i have the blue and the red pill wich one you prefer ?

Edited November 11, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Col_Jessep]

So instead of declining contract you can now just time warp to the next sunrise and get new contracts?

The only way to solve the slot machine problem is to make interesting missions that the player wants to accept.

Penalizing the player for dismissing uninteresting missions is bad game design. The player has no influence on what missions he gets. We had enough impossible missions like launch clamps in flight over the Mün to know that some missions are outright impossible. No matter what, no player should feel forced to accept contracts he doesn't like or to time warp until new contracts become available.

And I don't accept the "you can turn it off" answer. You can turn off gravity too, but that's not how the game should be played under normal circumstances.

[manaiaK]

There's a new strategy available in Admin that de-emphasizes contracts in favour of doing your own thing. You don't have to edit game files.

The contracts system is essentially a guide for players who want some direction, challenges and goals to achieve.

And: it's funny how the people who are always asking for "more realism" don't like it when they get it. In the real world, declining to bid on contracts does affect your reputation. Just saying. EDIT: this is not directed at the OP. But there are others....

Edited November 11, 2015 by manaiaK

[NovaSilisko]

And: it's funny how the people who are always asking for "more realism" don't like it when they get it. In the real world, declining to bid on contracts does affect your reputation. Just saying.

In the real world contracts aren't asking you to put launch clamps on the sun.

[klgraham1013]

I've always liked the idea of the player submitting mission proposals and the game assigning appropriate rewards. Might me a good end-game way of doing contracts.

[TK421d]

i dont even play career any more because of insane contracts. i just do old school and play science mode, my own 'career goals' whenever i did career was just to get all the science anyway, so... yeah.

[klgraham1013]

And: it's funny how the people who are always asking for "more realism" don't like it when they get it. In the real world, declining to bid on contracts does affect your reputation. Just saying.

It's funny how, in the print business anyway, we actually have some say in the contracts we have. It's not a one way street.

[WinkAllKerb'']

*cave out*

The contract system make me try some stuff i wouldn't have tried otherwise, sometime in more or less comfortable condition depending what's already unlocked or not. + It's a good thing to learn to avoid undoable/"very high difficulties"/"almost suicidal" missions also just from reading the contract, businessmen often have no idea what' they are talkin' about when it come to launching rocket's and askin' weird things xDr.

*cave in*

Edited November 11, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[DancesWithSquirrels]

I don't think the rep penalty should take you to zero - perhaps a decay factor, or scaled to current rep, so that if you have low rep already declining a (bad) contract will only have a small effect?

[Kyrt Malthorn]

I'll play devil's advocate here.

It's an option that can be turned off, and I believe that is as it should be. But, personally, I like to leave to leave that slider at 1. The slot machine usage of the contracts window bugged me. That wasn't realistic at all. How often does a space agency get the chance to decide what contracts or government grants are given to it? They can appeal, but very frequently a space agency's goals are driven by politics. Politics are illogical enough in the real world; imagine kerbal politics for a second.

I kindof see the decline penalty as "decline of public interest" if you refuse to do things that've been pushed by kerbal science fiction or politics. And you're not without options; the new contextual contracts are much more interesting than the old ones. You can always wait, or keep funds in reserve to fly missions you won't find contracts for, but need to do. And when I want a game I don't have to worry about contracts much, I can turn off the penalty, increase funds returns, and start the game with some kickstart rep.

I may be a minority in this thread, but there are other players out there who don't mind that the option exists and needn't make a fuss.

[FancyMouse]

It's actually one of the adjustable difficulty options upon creating a new save.

[More Boosters]

Yeah, I know. You can change a lot of the game by editing files. My point was more that it shouldn't be there to begin with. It doesn't make any sense and it really doesn't add anything except unnecessary difficulty (and grind by forcing the player to take contracts they otherwise wouldn't care to). From a gameplay perspective, you're punishing the player. From a realism perspective, it's just dumb; nobody would run a business that way. And from my personal perspective, it takes away fun.

As long as it is fully optional, I'm okay with it. I would like to see more relevant contracts, but then again I've been waiting for DMagic Orbital Sciences to be updated so I couldn't play career much... How is the contract system different? Do we finally get more sensible space station contracts than "build an empty and perfunctory space stationesque thing, fire it straight on escape trajectory and enjoy big bux"?

[manaiaK]

I'll play devil's advocate here.

.. very frequently a space agency's goals are driven by politics. Politics are illogical enough in the real world; imagine kerbal politics for a second.

... You can always wait, or keep funds in reserve to fly missions you won't find contracts for, but need to do. And when I want a game I don't have to worry about contracts much, I can turn off the penalty, increase funds returns, and start the game with some kickstart rep.

Thank you for these words of reason.

[Stoney3K]

I kindof see the decline penalty as "decline of public interest" if you refuse to do things that've been pushed by kerbal science fiction or politics. And you're not without options; the new contextual contracts are much more interesting than the old ones.

I still think that "carry tourist X on a suborbital flight" or "Test part XYZ that I have already unlocked on some impossible altitude and speed" should be reviewed. They make the career system boring and promote the slot-machine use.

Penalizing the user for doing such a thing is not the answer. Squad is now basically annoying the player for the fact that they cannot (yet) generate more interesting contracts.

[Enorats]

Remember when you were young, and someone dared you to do something out on the playground and you were all like heck no, that's crazy. No way am I doing that! You probably lost some rep after that.

More seriously though, I think the idea here is to reflect that each of the contracts SHOULD be doable and that if you can't or won't do them then that reflects poorly on your reputation. It also encourages players to try completing contracts they might have otherwise just ignored.

I've yet to try the new system myself as I spent the last 20 hours exploring the wasteland of Boston, but when I do come back for 1.1 my guess is I'll probably still all but ignore the contract system. It was always too random for my tastes, and the difficulty level of the missions went through the roof after you make it to the Mun/Minmus. I love worrying about funds, and collecting science.. but hate being limited in what parts I use and having to deal with contracts. So, I play with the Science Funding mod that gives funds for science points gained, and topple the tech tree at the start of the game. That lets me play the perfect combo of sandbox/career/science for my personal tastes.

[r_rolo1]

Well, IMHO this is a bad...simply because there is a way to avoid those rep hits scot free: just wait for the contracts you don't want to expire. And it is not that the game needed yet another reason to warp out ...

[Jovus]

Well, IMHO this is a bad...simply because there is a way to avoid those rep hits scot free: just wait for the contracts you don't want to expire. And it is not that the game needed yet another reason to warp out ...

Careful what you wish for. One 'solution' to this would be to make it so that all non-accepted contracts ding your rep when they expire...

[r_rolo1]

I sincerily hope not. We don't actually need fetch quests in this game

[Stoney3K]

More seriously though, I think the idea here is to reflect that each of the contracts SHOULD be doable and that if you can't or won't do them then that reflects poorly on your reputation. It also encourages players to try completing contracts they might have otherwise just ignored.

I don't think "avoiding punishment" is a good way of making dull, grinding gameplay more rewarding.

IMO, the contracts should be more varied and more science-oriented, with (possibly special) parts that get unlocked for the contract when you need them. For example, you can't do an orbital survey in the "regular" fashion but you may be able to do it on a contract, unlocking the survey scanner when you have accepted a contract that needs it.

This would also allow unmanned probes and rockets early on in the game with parts that are valid for a single contract only.