Devnote Tuesday: Optimistic Goals

[Alshain]

Can the contract weighting be reset, or disabled? What if I don't want to do one kind of contract... right now. Given the fact the contract system still gives you things in an unintelligent order of capability, is it going to make it so I never see those again?

[RocketPilot573]

No Pre-Christmas update? December 26th it is!




JK, I'm kinda bummed but I understand. I have high hopes for this update. :wink:

[Dr_Turkey]

[quote name='RocketPilot573']

JK, I'm kinda bummed but I understand. I have high hopes for this update. :wink:[/QUOTE]

We all do buddy, we all do.

[Barklight]

[quote name='Alshain']Can the contract weighting be reset, or disabled? What if I don't want to do one kind of contract... right now. Given the fact the contract system still gives you things in an unintelligent order of capability, is it going to make it so I never see those again?[/QUOTE]



[B][U]CONTRACT WEIGHING[/U][/B]

Arsonide posted this on Reddit. Answered my question, might clear up some here.

1) Assuming all available contracts have been those I don't want to do for a while (can happen with randomness) so I had to do them in order to make money/science. The game will then think those are the contracts I prefer when in fact it's the opposite. How does the system prevent bad luck turning into continued frustration?
[I]1) It's a cumulative effect that happens over time, once the contracts you prefer show up and you start doing those, they will overtake the others fairly quickly. It's a weighted influence, and it never hits 0% or 100%. That means nothing will ever completely disappear or completely fill the mission board, but in general, your preferred missions will be much more common.
[/I]

2) The one type of contract I really like is the "Explore $planet_or_moon", but those are quite rare and not repeatable. How is a preference for this type of contracts factored into the new system?
[I]2) Unique contracts always appear with default weighting, so they always have a chance to show up with this system. Explore contracts are also getting a few more tweaks that I will elaborate on in future development logs.[/I]


Edit: aaaaand speak of the devil... Here you are the next post after this cross site reference post, Arsonide :P Edited November 24, 2015 by Barklight
Surprise!

[Arsonide]

[quote name='regex']if I decline a type of contract will the weight of those eventually drop to 0 or is this simply a positive weighting based on those you accept? How many contracts will I typically have to accept or reject before I start to see an effect? Should I still be using Contract Configurator to completely remove terrible contract types?[/QUOTE]

The weight will drop just as fast as it rises, but it will never drop to zero by default. If it did, that would permanently lock out that contract with no hope of seeing it again. If you want that, Contract Configurator is not required to disable contract types that you do not want to see at all. You can do that by tweaking Contracts.cfg in the section designated to that contract type.

[NoMrBond]

[quote name='Hobbes Novakoff']Is there an example of what we can expect from the Standard shader? Like, a demo made by Unity or something? Because if so, I wanna see it.[/QUOTE]

Unity 5 Graphics - The Standard Shader - Unity Official Tutorials

[video=youtube;fD_ho_ofY6A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_ho_ofY6A[/video]

[regex]

[quote name='Arsonide']The weight will drop just as fast as it rises, but it will never drop to zero by default. If it did, that would permanently lock out that contract with no hope of seeing it again.[/quote]Yes, that's the idea. I never want to see part test contracts. Ever.

[quote name='Arsonide']If you want that, Contract Configurator is not required to disable contract types that you do not want to see at all. You can do that by tweaking Contracts.cfg in the section designated to that contract type.[/QUOTE]Minor note about that file, it's inconsistent in its use of "molniya" and "kolniya" in variable names, kind of confusing sometimes.

[Vallius]

I'm proud of you guys at SQUAD, for not letting schedule pressure harm the quality of your product. I run into the same situation in my work, and I'm glad you made the right choice.

Also, if you are still planning a major graphics/audio overhaul (as was implied by Maxmaps), I'd [I]highly[/I] recommend doing that [I]before[/I] making the console releases. No sense in releasing an inferior product to the non-desktop/laptop audience.

[Guest]

[quote name='SQUAD'] The KSP forum however has over 2.3 million of them and we don’t want to burn down the data center so this process will likely take a couple of days.
[/QUOTE]
I think that is my new favorite quote. :P

[jpkerman]

While contract weighting would help the progression logic of contracts, should not the overall direction or type of contract start as a strategy from the Administration building? In addition to the current strategies a choice of an overall contract direction such as Unmanned probes/manned orbital/space planes/ Space stations/inner planet/outer planet/ Kerbal local type would seem to be a choice from the upper level administration. You could even have a hybrid combination of strategies (Manned orbital/unmanned probe inner planets) type of choices that would set the initial contract types. The contract weighting would start as the player finished their first choice of contracts and continued to pursue the follow on contracts. Changing overall strategies could have effects so a switch from one (manned Kerbal local system) to another (inner planet space stations ) for example, would cost some funds or science points.

[Alshain]

[quote name='Arsonide']The weight will drop just as fast as it rises, but it will never drop to zero by default. If it did, that would permanently lock out that contract with no hope of seeing it again. If you want that, Contract Configurator is not required to disable contract types that you do not want to see at all. You can do that by tweaking Contracts.cfg in the section designated to that contract type.[/QUOTE]

Answers my concerns. Thanks.

[Superfluous J]

My favorite feature of 1.1 is that you're taking the time to do it right.

[GeneCash]

I want to add another thumbs-up for the decision to TEST MOAR! This was probably a really hard decision to make too.

Thanks for being cool and up-front about it too.

[Just Jim]

That's fine as far as I'm concerned, take your time to get it right. 2016 isn't so far off, and I'm having all sorts of fun with 1.0.5 and the new contextual contracts. I've already gotten 2 offers to expand my Kerbal space station, and one to start building a keostationary satellite network. That was a fun surprise.

I love the idea of a weighted contract system! I like playing with tourists, I'm wondering how it will effect them? And will we see offers for tourists to visit a space station or base?

[StrandedonEarth]

Another great Devnotes, and I really don't mind at all if you guys take your time to do it right.

[quote name='jpkerman']While contract weighting would help the progression logic of contracts, should not the overall direction or type of contract start as a strategy from the Administration building? In addition to the current strategies a choice of an overall contract direction such as Unmanned probes/manned orbital/space planes/ Space stations/inner planet/outer planet/ Kerbal local type would seem to be a choice from the upper level administration. You could even have a hybrid combination of strategies (Manned orbital/unmanned probe inner planets) type of choices that would set the initial contract types. The contract weighting would start as the player finished their first choice of contracts and continued to pursue the follow on contracts. Changing overall strategies could have effects so a switch from one (manned Kerbal local system) to another (inner planet space stations ) for example, would cost some funds or science points.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking along the same lines. Being able to change the contract weighting in the Admin building would give the player more control over what sort of contracts show up.

[Raptor9]

I still haven't scratched the surface of doing all the new stuff I wanted to do in 1.0.5 yet (seaplanes, updating existing designs, new miners, new ships, etc etc). I can handle 1.1 pushed back. Thanks for putting quality ahead of quantity, Squad.

[Dispatcher]

Take your sweet time! There's enough new stuff in 1.0.5 to keep me busy at least until the 1.1 update. I am thinking of the saying, "speed or quality, choose one."

[Hobbes Novakoff]

[quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist'][URL]http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/shader-StandardShader.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

If KSP looks one-eighth as good as that first screenshot...

[problemecium]

w00t w00t!

For once (no offense meant) I'm pleased about everything in these devnotes. The Standard shader / PBR upgrade is a very welcome surprise.
Sad that we'll have to wait till January, but the good news is I'll have plenty of time to wrap up my Jool mission without having to rush it too hard xD

[Robotengineer]

Very happy the release is getting delayed, as strange as that sounds. Looking forward to contracts that adapt to your preferences, though it would be nice to have a 'reset preferences' button, so that you don't prefer one type of contract early in career, and then be stuck with that type of contract for the rest of the game.

[panzer1b]

Take your time, its not like having a release earlier (but with bugs and crap in it) is better then really releasing something you are all proud of.

Anyways, as for content, the one and ONLY thing i really care about is performance fixes, its so painful when im trying to load 4 250 part ships, and like 20 fighters/bombers at ~30-50 parts each in one spot to have an all out shootout. I want my massive warzone to be lag free!

[Kerbart]

Yay! Better get it right the first time.

Well... the second time, to be technically more correct. ([I]or the sixth time, depending on how we're counting...[/I])

[Lord Aurelius]

From a technical standpoint, this is looking to be one of the biggest updates so far (migrating to a new game engine is no small task). Delaying the update a few weeks is definitely the right call.

Glad to hear that the new relay system is being implemented more as a buff instead of providing yet another reason not to use probes. I still hope the framework stays in place to put the nerf behavior back in once we have a proper method (life support?) of balancing probes vs manned missions on higher difficulties.

[FancyMouse]

As expected, dev estimate always needs to multiply by 3

But still, take your time. It was never an official release date anyway so no worry.

[Threadsinger]

I've already received my money's worth for KSP several times over - take your time, enjoy the holiday season. Heck, so-called AAA games like Fallout 4 could have taken a page from your playbook here (stupid interface)...

As for "Bob (Roverdude) implemented new mechanics that will encourage developing robust relay networks with buffs, [I][B]instead of nerfing the current mechanics[/B][/I].", I thank you for this progressive approach to new gameplay elements. Keep it simple for those who want it (as it was), reward those who want an expanded scope or greater gameplay challenge.

Looking forward to the new forums, assuming the transfer works well. Just try not to cross the streams or lose antimatter containment or whatever. I live on this continent you know.