Declining contracts in 1.0.5 career mode now costs you rep?

[Violent Jeb]

I just wanted to point out that this mechanic is flawed an obscene. Throwing my hat in the -1 ring, even if it can be disabled.

in the real business world, you don't hurt clients feelings by declining contracts, you are simply too busy to take them on, or you provide an alternative reason (not what we're looking for, etc.)

I do this all the time. Not only do i not LOSE business, but the same clients continue to bring me new opportunities that might be more in line with what i am trying to do.

This is a botched solution to the completely broken contract system

Not only are the contracts completely RNG, but they are often;

•completely redundant (testing rocket parts which have already been used for 20 launches??)

•completely ludicrous in terms of payout

•Requiring a massively over engineered structure. example, missions that require more than 1 large "ore" tank. If my ISRU calls for one tank, it calls for one tank. i'm not adding the additional mass and size just to fufill some arbitrary RNG contract

Let's talk about how these RNG contracts are typed out via WACKY MAD LIB?

When you take your own contract system seriously, then i'll stop skipping your repeat, RNG, wacky mad lib contracts.

If they were dynamic, scripted, multiple pathed contracts that changed based on the type of space program you were running, i could see punishing the player for declining contracts. This is a complete joke. It's like trying to justify the broken mechanic by removing more fun gameplay mechanics.

ANYBODY who has played a tycoon game or business.sim knows that some of the "real life" stuff is removed in place of better gameplay. So it's a complete farce to say

"oh well IRL NASA sends up satellite after pointless satellite and doesn't have any say, so just shutup and push buttons at your PC"

No thankyou. I will continue to mod out 70% of the contracts, as the only nesessary ones to maintain a career are planetary exploration and flag planting, which should be a single mission to begin with. But once again you are punishing vanilla players who are looking for an even remotely enjoyable career experience. As it stands this game is a hollow shell in terms of a business or tycoon type "career", where more and more the freedom to run my own space program is being replaced by empty justification for broken mechanics.

Is it that much to as for to have a small penance for the missions that I WANT TO FLY and to simultaneously have to manage career funds from that? I just want science mode + funds that work, and this completely doesn't work. Making it suck more isn't going to make it work.

Heck, why not just instant game over for anybody who skips a contract? If people didn't want to play this game "their way" then we wouldn't even have buoyancy, and the majority of the plane experience we have now. Forcing people to succumb to the broken system by punishing them for wanting to manage their career their way? Nonsense.

Real excited for 1.0.5, but as usual its just a huge mess of being forced to take the good with the bad.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Violent Jeb
corrected a type in "I just want science mod + funds that works", added an e

[MrOsterman]

I suspect in the "lost Kerbalnaut" case it's actually more realistic to have proper life support, since that little green guy/girl is not going to stay there forever.

Get to him too late, and it means certain death, mission failure. It's not like he's up there in his pod with unlimited air and snacks, just watching TV shows until someone comes over for a taxi service. It's a rescue mission after all.

While accurate it also conflicts with some other real world twists.

I lose a kerbalnaut on the mun. I can't quite afford a full rescue mission so instead I... take contracts to test fire rockets while I save up the cash to launch a rescue?

More realistically would be some kind of AI that says "hey, you've got a stranded kerbalnaut, you should rescue them. here's unlimited money until you do but you can't get more research until you have" or something similar.

Plus, honestly, I think the unlimited air/ food/ water is, while unrealistic, a fun twist of having little kerbals rather than people.

[MaxwellsDemon]

Back on topic, first things first. no one is forcing you to acept all the contracts... you're just being punished by giving a bald face "No" to the proposals.

Yeah... why not just ignore the ones you don't want? It's not like they're going to give me a contract for precisely the mission I have in my head at any one time. I just take the satellite launches and such when I can to pay the bills, and then I build and launch what I want.

[Stoney3K]

While accurate it also conflicts with some other real world twists.

I lose a kerbalnaut on the mun. I can't quite afford a full rescue mission so instead I... take contracts to test fire rockets while I save up the cash to launch a rescue?

More realistically would be some kind of AI that says "hey, you've got a stranded kerbalnaut, you should rescue them. here's unlimited money until you do but you can't get more research until you have" or something similar.

The most realistic scenario would be, in high-prestige missions (like rescuing a Kerbal on another moon or planet), that the contracting agency gives you an advance payment to construct the launch vessel. If you fail, you're screwed because you would need to repay the advance, with some kind of interest as a penalty (10-15%?), while you would get the remainder of the contract payment if you succeed.

[Torquemadus]

A key part of the gameplay of Career Mode is deciding which contracts to accept and which ones to reject. On higher (custom) difficulties, many contracts are downright impractical or uneconomical. In many circumstances, contracts need to be chosen together in order to share launch costs.

A good example is the part test contracts. These often require construction of an extremely impractical craft to test a part, in a situation it would never be used for, for far less money than it costs to get it there. At other times, a part test contract fits with my plans by calling for a test of a useful part at a place I intended to go to anyway.

I will often plan a mission as a "campaign", which accomplishes multiple contracts from one launch. I will then visit the Mission Control building periodically to see if there are any new contracts that my existing spacecraft could fulfil. I cannot make money by simply "grinding" contracts.

The real problem of decline spamming is that it can be exploited to allow players to endlessly repeat certain contracts, such as science transmissions and the planting of "flag gardens". The main argument made in favour of decline spamming is that some players view contracts as "broken" and don't want to play by the rules. There is a reason why this feature can be turned off!

I play on custom difficulty settings because I find the game far too easy otherwise. Even if decline penalties were turned off by default, I would still use them in my Career Mode saves. If other players are finding the game too hard on default settings, I would suggest playing on easier settings or playing a different game mode.

[Jett_Quasar]

Finally a use for Rep in the game...

JR

[KSK]

Yeah... why not just ignore the ones you don't want? It's not like they're going to give me a contract for precisely the mission I have in my head at any one time. I just take the satellite launches and such when I can to pay the bills, and then I build and launch what I want.

That used to be how I thought about it too but actually, I think it's the basic problem with Career Mode. Or it used to be - things might be better depending how the linked contracts work in practice. At the moment, you have the choice of fitting your space program around the contracts on offer, or doing a lot of busywork to save up for the missions you actually want to do. Either way, your program is being driven by the random contract generator, which doesn't make for a very satisfactory game. Planning becomes a matter of 'hoping the right contracts turn up' and likewise what you can choose to do is often limited by the contracts on offer:

"Maybe I'd like to go to the Mun today - I quite fancy extending that space station I've got over there. Hmmm, no Mun contracts for me - guess I'll go back to launching satellites for a bit. Meh. Oooh - maybe I could decline some of those satellite contracts and hope that something more interesting turns up. Oh look - my rep just took a nosedive. Meh."

It would be a lot better if Career Mode ran on a 'build it and they will come' approach:

Put a fleet of telecom satellites into orbit - and rent them out for a monthly fee.

Build a rocket, allocate it as a 'tourist rocket', set a price and see if anyone takes it. If your safety record is good and you're going somewhere interesting, you'll probably get a customer. In fact, right at the start, you'll probably get a load of customers purely from the novelty of being able to go to space. But if you charge too much you'll limit yourself to all but a very small handful of early adopters.

Build a probe, stuff it with instruments and offer it out to your local research institutes. If you're feeling ambitious, go for a Cubesat arrangement with lots of little sats (all of which you can charge for) on a single bus. At the start of your program, people will probably pay through the nose for access to LKO. Later on, LKO might become less attractive (although there'll still be steady money there) whereas launching probes to Jool might be the next big thing.

The point is that there should a lot of ways of making money and that the player is free to build the space program they want to build. Povided that they can figure out a way to monetise it, they can run the missions that they want to run on a schedule that they want to play to.

[sal_vager]

This is more of a Gameplay Question so it's moved to the relevant forum

[Arsonide]

I've been reading the feedback here, and there's a lot of good stuff for and against the reputation penalty.

One thing I see pop up a lot, is that people feel the need to skip by some of the crazier contracts, like "launch clamps on the moon". One of the focus points of 1.0.5 was to eliminate a lot of these. Launch clamps and jet engines on the moon were actually taken care of with 1.0. In 1.0.5 tourists no longer ask to go on suborbital trips anywhere other than Kerbin, or anywhere that kerbals haven't already been. Rescues no longer appear anywhere that you haven't personally sent kerbals. Part tests were given a completely new set of constraints that are custom tailored to each individual part. The end result is that hopefully these crazy contracts are less of an issue. These are just a few minor examples of a lot of major changes that went into the generation of contracts to make them more practical outside of the contextual contracts that were added.

Of course we want a little crazy in some contracts. However, if you feel that you've generated something that crosses the line from "fun crazy" into "crazy crazy", I do encourage you to post feedback as that does affect development in a big way.

The point is that there should a lot of ways of making money and that the player is free to build the space program they want to build. Povided that they can figure out a way to monetise it, they can run the missions that they want to run on a schedule that they want to play to.

This is a point I wanted to touch on. Many people feel that declining dozens of contracts until they have what they need to go where they want to go is the only way to play career "my way". The thing about "my way" is that it is different for every player. Some players like surveys, some players don't. Ideally we'd be generating a list of contracts custom tailored to each individual player, such that they would not need to sift through anything to play the game their way, and that list would differ from player to player. That is the biggest point of feedback I am gathering in this thread. For now though, my main point is that contracts are designed to encourage and direct the player with procedural objectives. These objectives were never meant to line up exactly with the plans of the player, and rolling the dice repeatedly until you find something that does line up exactly with your plans is neither fun nor intended.

This is why 1.0.5 added passive milestone rewards, and Leadership Initiative, which boosts them significantly at the expense of contract rewards. Players that want to play the game their way should not need to worry about rolling the dice. They can just do what they want to do, and be rewarded for doing it. For players such as myself that require direction, there is mission control, but for players that want to conduct their space program in an independent manner, there is no need to stack contracts by rolling the dice anymore.

[FancyMouse]

In 1.0.5 tourists no longer ask to go on suborbital trips anywhere other than Kerbin, or anywhere that kerbals haven't already been.

Oh no! I miss my Sun sub-orbital contracts:rolleyes:

[KSK]

This is a point I wanted to touch on. Many people feel that declining dozens of contracts until they have what they need to go where they want to go is the only way to play career "my way". The thing about "my way" is that it is different for every player. Some players like surveys, some players don't. Ideally we'd be generating a list of contracts custom tailored to each individual player, such that they would not need to sift through anything to play the game their way, and that list would differ from player to player. That is the biggest point of feedback I am gathering in this thread. For now though, my main point is that contracts are designed to encourage and direct the player with procedural objectives. These objectives were never meant to line up exactly with the plans of the player, and rolling the dice repeatedly until you find something that does line up exactly with your plans is neither fun nor intended.

This is why 1.0.5 added passive milestone rewards, and Leadership Initiative, which boosts them significantly at the expense of contract rewards. Players that want to play the game their way should not need to worry about rolling the dice. They can just do what they want to do, and be rewarded for doing it. For players such as myself that require direction, there is mission control, but for players that want to conduct their space program in an independent manner, there is no need to stack contracts by rolling the dice anymore.

Perhaps I spoke too soon. Thanks for the feedback and for taking the time to read through this thread.

[Dunbaratu]

This jamming up the list of 10 contracts with mostly ones you don't want is in fact *inevitable* when you think about it. Imagine you see 10 contracts, 7 of which you don't want. So you end up leaving those 7 in the list, and only removing one of the other 3 to perform it. Then it spawns a replacement for it, then you do the replacement, then it spawns another replacement and darn it it's a junky contract too, so now you have 8 out of 10 you won't do. So you do one of the other 2, and it gets replaced, and by chance eventually it *also* ends up being one of the kinds you won't do so now you have 9 you won't do.... The point is that the fact that you don't like that kind of contract *causes* the list to become more full of the kind you don't like specifically because you aren't removing them from the list as fast as the ones you actually are doing. This system inevitably ends up filling your list mostly with what you don't want to do.

The solution to that is not to punish the player for the poor contract design that keeps feeding them junky contracts they find boring, and allowing the presence of those contracts prevent the ones they like from spawning. The solution is to stop allowing the junky contracts they've been "soft rejecting" by just not choosing them to stuff the queue and prevent the ones they do from appearing.

One solution could be a limiter to prevent more than a certain number of contracts of exactly the same type from being present at the same time in the list. i.e. Configure part test contracts with a

"max slots = 3" or something like that so it won't spawn any more if 3 slots are already in use by the same kind of contract, and do that for all kinds of contract.

Another solution would be to use the history of previously expired contracts to remember what sorts of contracts the player tends to ignore more often and use that to weigh the probability of what kind gets spawned in the future. Think of it as a mini reputation system. You've gotten a reputation as a space agency that refuses to do space tourism, so eventually people stop coming to you with offers to do it.

[Arsonide]

One solution could be a limiter to prevent more than a certain number of contracts of exactly the same type from being present at the same time in the list. i.e. Configure part test contracts with a "max slots = 3" or something like that so it won't spawn any more if 3 slots are already in use by the same kind of contract, and do that for all kinds of contract.

This is already the case. Nearly every contract has a limit, and you can see these limits if you open up Contracts.cfg. However, due to how things work there needs to be at least one contract that is always uncapped, and it needs to be one available early on. This allows the board to fill up in the instance that there is nothing else available to use. As you can imagine, Part Tests are currently utilized for this purpose. However, their limit is also configurable if you wish to disable this behavior.

[tater]

Or, you know, the contracts could not be absurd in the first place, and you'd not want to decline 99% of them.

Parts testing? Sure, but it should have a sensible context. Suborbital over the mun is no different than orbital or suborbital over any airless body (or in deep space). That is just one example of many. They could all be improved (most removed). Tests of huge parts, with nothing to go with them (no tanks or fairings that match large engines, for example) are similarly dumb.

The tourism and rescue contracts are awful. I've seen a few at this point, but have they been fixed so you don't get spammed with contracts to take tourists, or rescue astronauts from any body you've sent even a probe to? (just started a career in with the new patch). What about the abundance? At least 1/3 of contracts, maybe 1/2 are tourism/VIP/rescues at any given moment.

The surveys are a great idea, but are not sensibly arrayed, and are terrible when you have to worry about finding the right sensor to click on for the few seconds you might have (switch from map to craft, oops, the thermometer is rotated on the wrong side, and it;s dark, find that, crud, exiting area). The mix of altitudes just makes them tedious. The game needs instruments that take data in such a way that the altitude makes sense (cameras get higher ground resolution if closer, etc). With the new contracts able to interact with each other, the survey goals should have a POINT. Visual surveys and whatever other instrument from orbit. Then maybe visual surveys from lower altitude (higher res images). Then those contracts generate contracts in the same locations for surface data, etc.

Edited November 15, 2015 by tater

[Alshain]

Or, you know, the contracts could not be absurd in the first place, and you'd not want to decline 99% of them.

Parts testing? Sure, but it should have a sensible context. Suborbital over the mun is no different than orbital or suborbital over any airless body (or in deep space). That is just one example of many. They could all be improved (most removed). Tests of huge parts, with nothing to go with them (no tanks or fairings that match large engines, for example) are similarly dumb.

Can you test this Mammoth for us in orbit? What? You only have 1.25 meter tanks and no struts? You should be able to figure that out, right?

The tourism and rescue contracts are awful. I've seen a few at this point, but have they been fixed so you don't get spammed with contracts to take tourists, or rescue astronauts from any body you've sent even a probe to? (just started a career in with the new patch). What about the abundance? At least 1/3 of contracts, maybe 1/2 are tourism/VIP/rescues at any given moment.

Until you unlock ISRU in the tech tree, then you have about 75% "mine ore" contracts. I don't do those and will never do those, so that's where I start deleting 100 contracts at a time. Hence the reason this is a stupid change.

The surveys are a great idea, but are not sensibly arrayed, and are terrible when you have to worry about finding the right sensor to click on for the few seconds you might have (switch from map to craft, oops, the thermometer is rotated on the wrong side, and it;s dark, find that, crud, exiting area). The mix of altitudes just makes them tedious. The game needs instruments that take data in such a way that the altitude makes sense (cameras get higher ground resolution if closer, etc). With the new contracts able to interact with each other, the survey goals should have a POINT. Visual surveys and whatever other instrument from orbit. Then maybe visual surveys from lower altitude (higher res images). Then those contracts generate contracts in the same locations for surface data, etc.

My problem with surveys ties back to the last one where it doesn't pay attention to what you have unlocked in the tech tree. These often have ridiculous altitudes. You could surely use a rocket to get up there but they are so spread out you would have to launch a rocket for each survey point (at least on Kerbin) and they don't pay that well. So that leaves planes to get up to that 19km temperature reading.... and all I have is a Juno. Later in the tech tree it's fine, but by the time you have something capable of reaching that altitude they don't pay enough on Kerbin to be worth doing. You need at least the Panther, by then I'm off to Duna bringing in real money. Simply put, there is no reason to have surveys that high on Kerbin, really ever, unless it's a survey from orbit or only has one survey point and pays for the rocket you need to get there.

The long and the short of it is this, the contract system is still too unintelligent to have a system that punishes you for declining a contract, and even if it wasn't... why punish a player for their preferences in play style? This might make a good feature for hard mode players, but for some reason it's turned on for Normal mode. It's easy enough to turn off if you realize it is there, I didn't so I had to go edit my save file, new players won't either. Nevertheless it should be defaulted on for Hard Mode only and then of course Custom.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Alshain

[Arsonide]

The tourism and rescue contracts are awful. I've seen a few at this point, but have they been fixed so you don't get spammed with contracts to take tourists, or rescue astronauts from any body you've sent even a probe to? (just started a career in with the new patch). What about the abundance? At least 1/3 of contracts, maybe 1/2 are tourism/VIP/rescues at any given moment.

By default in the contract configuration file, tourism is limited at three contracts, recoveries are limited at three contracts, and ISRU is limited at two contracts. If you are seeing more than that in mission control at any given time, please submit a bug report with the save file.

Manned and unmanned progress are tracked now, so tourists and rescue contracts will only target planets you have actually sent kerbals to.

My problem with surveys ties back to the last one where it doesn't pay attention to what you have unlocked in the tech tree. These often have ridiculous altitudes. You could surely use a rocket to get up there but they are so spread out you would have to launch a rocket for each survey point (at least on Kerbin) and they don't pay that well. So that leaves planes to get up to that 19km temperature reading.... and all I have is a Juno. Later in the tech tree it's fine, but by the time you have something capable of reaching that altitude they don't pay enough on Kerbin to be worth doing. You need at least the Panther, by then I'm off to Duna bringing in real money. Simply put, there is no reason to have surveys that high on Kerbin, really ever, unless it's a survey from orbit or only has one survey point and pays for the rocket you need to get there.

This is a tough call, because surveys appear on more planets than Kerbin, and depending on your technology progression, it might be easier to do high altitude surveys. Jet engine technology is not a good benchmark. Rather, the progression levels of the player are monitored. Surveys start rather easy, and within close range of KSC, and progressively get more difficult and further out as the player accomplishes things. They were reeled in much closer to KSC with this patch as well. Another quiet change was that they are all themed now. Easier contracts will be all high, all low, or all ground. Medium contracts can also be low/ground, or high/low. Hard can also be totally varied, as before. This should make it easier for the player to pick out surveys that fit his or her technology progression. Low altitude surveys for the players investing in planes, and high altitude ones for players doing surveys from orbit, or with sounding rockets.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Arsonide

[Wanderfound]

Low altitude surveys for the players investing in planes, and high altitude ones for players doing surveys from orbit, or with sounding rockets.

...or with rocket-boosted Juno-powered suborbital spaceplanes. Low tech, early game, and quite a lot of fun to build and fly.

Count me as a vote for keeping as much variety and challenge in the survey and testing contracts as possible. I'd even like to see G forces added to the altitude/speed parameters; "please test part X while pulling between five and seven G, at an altitude of 1000-2000m and a speed of 300-400m/s".

Atypical flight missions are the most fun ones for me; they make you think a bit, instead of just launching another standard booster.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Wanderfound

[Alshain]

This is a tough call, because surveys appear on more planets than Kerbin

Exactly my point. The system isn't intelligent enough to discriminate based on which planet it's on, let alone the player's preference. You've basically argued my point that player shouldn't be punished for declining contracts that are not feasible. If I get a high altitude contract that I don't have the tech for, I should be able to decline it without the game being silly and punishing me for not having the tech to do it. It's just a bad game mechanic.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Alshain

[Hotaru]

Until you unlock ISRU in the tech tree, then you have about 75% "mine ore" contracts. I don't do those and will never do those, so that's where I start deleting 100 contracts at a time. Hence the reason this is a stupid change.

This is my main worry about the rep penalties: those mining contracts in the late-game (not so late as before, though, with the mini ISRU). Most of the other contracts--rescues, surveys, part tests, tourism--it's not hard to imagine/role-play a reason why the company wants you to do the thing they want done; but I can't fathom why anyone would want me to pick up 50 tons of dirt from Eve just to dump it on Gilly!

My suggestion would be to have all "move ore" contracts involve returning the ore to Kerbin (or perhaps carrying it to an existing space station, now we have the contextual system); then at least they would make some kind of realistic sense.

[tater]

By default in the contract configuration file, tourism is limited at three contracts, recoveries are limited at three contracts, and ISRU is limited at two contracts. If you are seeing more than that in mission control at any given time, please submit a bug report with the save file.

So at any given time I can have 3 tourism, 3 rescues, and 2 ISRU?

Right now, my contract office shows 12 contracts (none active ATM). I have 3 VIP/tourist contracts, and 3 rescues. That's fully half my options right now, and I have no desire to do any of them (I don't do tourism, ever, and I usually do rescues only when I like the name).

The rescues are boring. The later rescues that require grabbing the craft? I never do those, they make no sense.

I wrote a tome on this a while back, but rescues should be far more varied. They should have complete craft, not a single pod. The craft could be broken (send an engineer to install a new solar panel, or something), the craft could be out of fuel (refuel the craft, and the task is complete). Alternately, you deliver the kerbal someplace (adrift kerbal is delivered to a coorbital (but offset several km) complete craft. The current crop are a snooze.

Manned and unmanned progress are tracked now, so tourists and rescue contracts will only target planets you have actually sent kerbals to.

Awesome, glad this was fixed. Still, it seems like rescues should likely be one SOI lower than what you have sent a kerbal to.

This is a tough call, because surveys appear on more planets than Kerbin, and depending on your technology progression, it might be easier to do high altitude surveys. Jet engine technology is not a good benchmark. Rather, the progression levels of the player are monitored. Surveys start rather easy, and within close range of KSC, and progressively get more difficult and further out as the player accomplishes things. They were reeled in much closer to KSC with this patch as well. Another quiet change was that they are all themed now. Easier contracts will be all high, all low, or all ground. Medium contracts can also be low/ground, or high/low. Hard can also be totally varied, as before. This should make it easier for the player to pick out surveys that fit his or her technology progression. Low altitude surveys for the players investing in planes, and high altitude ones for players doing surveys from orbit, or with sounding rockets.

All high, all low, or all ground makes sense. A mixture never makes sense. I'd much rather see a progression within an area---visuals, then grab some other data, then land and study in detail. That makes some sort of sense. Scattered around, and at different altitudes is just tedious, not hard.

[Laie]

Tourist contracts are bad.

Actually, they're cool if they fit my program, but more often than not they don't. I really wish we could do it the other way round: I have three spare seats on my mission to Duna, anyone interested?

[tater]

Tourist contracts would be fine if the "Strategies" office was actually strategies.

Seriously, add a new set of real strategies. The "mission statement" of your program. Adjust Science/tourism/transportation/commercial sliders such that the total = 100% That balance determines the ratio of contracts you see. Note that "transportation" early might be "VIP" contracts, but could also be "deliver 3 astronauts to station X over the Mun" (once a station mission for the Mun has been completed that can hold those guys).

[biohazard15]

Just started a new 1.0.5 career, and found about this "feature".

Frankly, this is the most ridiculous thing to add. Please either give us a convenient way to disable it (in difficulty settings) or remove it altogether.

[Alshain]

[quote name='biohazard15']Just started a new 1.0.5 career, and found about this "feature".

Frankly, this is the most ridiculous thing to add. Please either give us a convenient way to disable it (in difficulty settings) or remove it altogether.[/QUOTE]

You can disable it in difficulty settings, of course if you didn't know about it before starting your game you can only disable it through persistence editing. I don't think it is available in the Alt-F12 menu.