Let's discuss Rescue Contracts

[Waxing_Kibbous]

First off, let me establish that I love rescue contracts- nothing like plucking free Kerbals from Space. I find that there are some things that could be tweaked:

1) Early on you can simply overload the Astronaut Complex by spamming rescues. To me this is a bug, you should only get enough rescues to fill up to the current max limit, or perhaps the game would disallow access to the overflow crew or some other penalties.

2) Related to 1 above, there are way too many rescue contracts offered early on, this could be toned down quite a bit.

3) Not only distribute rescue contracts a bit more, but have more variation. It's easy to have 8+ stranded LKO Kerbals in practically the same equatorial orbit. Have some variety in the orbits in terms of inclination, direction, and orbital shape similar to other bodies.

4) Be better about evening out Kerbal occupations in rescues, eg. nobody wants to rescue 4 pilots in a row.

Bonus that most people will hate

5) My personal favorite, no money for rescues, only reputation (unless the vessel is recovered also). Kerbals are really costly to hire, it can be way cheaper to build a rescue rocket than hire a Kerbal. This needs to be balanced.

[StahnAileron]

17 minutes ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

5) My personal favorite, no money for rescues, only reputation (unless the vessel is recovered also). Kerbals are really costly to hire, it can be way cheaper to build a rescue rocket than hire a Kerbal. This needs to be balanced.

This is a LITTLE off-topic, but I despise the ever increasing costs of hiring Kerbals as a limitation for crew count. It becomes more practical to rescue Kerbals after about a dozen hires or so.

I don't do rescues (I'm not a fan of rendezvous missions, though I might do things like that now that I'm much more comfortable with orbital maneuvers), but do rescued Kerbals start at Level 0 as well? If so, maybe rescued Kerbals could have chances of higher ranks as time passes. No money for rescued Kerbals makes sense if you get to keep them. Adding possible higher ranked kerbals as a reward would sweeten the deal...

Unless they overhaul the whole crew hiring and management process. I'd prefer salaries, but you'd have to prioritize which kerbals get paid first so you can keep using them if you ever get into a financial pinch. Maybe a per-kerbal, per-launch fee? With higher ranked kerbals costing more to use on a mission? Dunno, just throwing ideas out as a substitute for the escalating hiring costs.

[Hotaru]

52 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

It becomes more practical to rescue Kerbals after about a dozen hires or so.

If anything, it's more practical to rescue Kerbals right off the bat. With default settings, even hire number 5 (i. e. your first after Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val, who you get for free) is pretty expensive, and they only get worse from there, up to the point where single Kerbals cost more than all but the most insanely elaborate spacecraft. So unless you manage to kill off the original 4 before you get into orbit, purely from a gameplay point of view you should never, ever hire a single Kerbal--there's a limitless supply of them up in orbit you can get paid to acquire.

Another problem, which I've complained about elsewhere, is the weighting system--the more rescue contracts you accept, the more you get. If, like me, you have a rule of always accepting them, you very quickly end up running the Kerbal Space Coast Guard, doing nothing but endless rescue missions till the end of time.

Personally I've mitigated both these effects in my career save by disabling rescues in my contracts.cfg and setting fund penalties to 10% (which keeps hiring costs civilized, though they still escalate eventually), but I completely agree the whole concept of rescues and Kerbal hiring costs is in severe need of a rebalance.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

1 hour ago, StahnAileron said:

This is a LITTLE off-topic, but I despise the ever increasing costs of hiring Kerbals as a limitation for crew count. It becomes more practical to rescue Kerbals after about a dozen hires or so.

I dislike the increasing cost dynamic as well, sometimes I play with this bit of code (needs the custom barn kit addon) Change the cost to whatever you see fit

@CUSTOMBARNKIT
{  
@ASTRONAUTS
 {
 @unlockedEVAClamber = 1
 @recruitHireBaseCost = 100000
 @recruitHireFixedRate = true
 }
}

 

[KSK]

13 hours ago, Hotaru said:

If anything, it's more practical to rescue Kerbals right off the bat. With default settings, even hire number 5 (i. e. your first after Jeb, Bill, Bob, and Val, who you get for free) is pretty expensive, and they only get worse from there, up to the point where single Kerbals cost more than all but the most insanely elaborate spacecraft. So unless you manage to kill off the original 4 before you get into orbit, purely from a gameplay point of view you should never, ever hire a single Kerbal--there's a limitless supply of them up in orbit you can get paid to acquire.

Another problem, which I've complained about elsewhere, is the weighting system--the more rescue contracts you accept, the more you get. If, like me, you have a rule of always accepting them, you very quickly end up running the Kerbal Space Coast Guard, doing nothing but endless rescue missions till the end of time.

Personally I've mitigated both these effects in my career save by disabling rescues in my contracts.cfg and setting fund penalties to 10% (which keeps hiring costs civilized, though they still escalate eventually), but I completely agree the whole concept of rescues and Kerbal hiring costs is in severe need of a rebalance.

Agreed on all points, especially the Kerbal Space Coast Guard point. That just seems like poorly thought out gameplay or a case of unintended consequences, depending on how charitable you're feeling.

I also dislike rescue contracts because for me they break any suspension of disbelief in Career Mode. Which probably sounds a bit ridiculous, but I can generally rationalize / roleplay away, the aspects of Career mode that I find a bit silly. Rescue missions though:

"Help - we have a kerbal stranded in space. Generous reward offered for a rescue attempt - contract is urgent and must be signed within two days."

*signs contract*

"Hey - thanks for that. No hurry on the rescue by the way - any time in the next five years will be fine."

Well that was a let down. Way to kill off any drama or tension in a rescue. Heck - I wonder if I could just tell the stranded fool to deorbit using his jetpack and then just make sure to land on his head after reentry. He might be a bit dizzy after that but I'm sure he'll walk away from the experience just fine.

Personally, I'd just scrap the rescue contracts, replace them with satellite servicing contracts (basically the same idea - rendezvous with target, get kerbal within 5m of target to complete) and then retune the kerbal hiring costs to something a bit more reasonable.

Edited February 17, 2017 by KSK

[tater]

Posted by me in Oct, 2014. Note that the existence of a craft came about after I posted this, but the crafts are just single parts that allow crew, and are not in fact even slightly immersive in most cases, and hence, IMHO, a failure.

So here are my original ideas on the subject. Note that "rescue in my ideas is not always returning to Kerbin, it might be returning him to his craft, or repairing/refueling his craft:

Rescue missions.

1. Stranded kerbal in Kerbin orbit. Like current mission, but there is a nearby spacecraft if he is EVA. He may be in the ship that cannot reenter/return to Kerbin. The craft can be a ship, or even a station. All would have reasonable time limits, guys don't float around for years un-rescued. Longer limit if he is aboard a ship. Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc).

a. Kerbal EVA has no EVA propellant, but is close by his fully functional spacecraft. Rescue him (move your hatch til you can hit F with him), then return him to his own craft.

b. Kerbal has EVA propellant (0-10% at random), but has drifted too far to return. Rescue him and return to his functional craft.

 

2. Stranded kerbal in orbit around another world. Same as 1, above, but around another world. If he has a functional craft there, then return him to it. Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc).

a. Kerbal EVA has no EVA propellant, but is close by his fully functional spacecraft. Rescue him (move your hatch til you can hit F with him), then return him to his own craft.

b. Kerbal has EVA propellant (0-10% at random), but has drifted too far to return. Rescue him and return to his functional craft.

 

3. Stranded spacecraft in Kerbin orbit. The spacecraft is without enough fuel to return (a), or has had a serious malfunction (. Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc).

a. Spacecraft is without necessary fuel to complete mission. The ship has a clamp-o-tron, and you refuel it to complete mission (amount of fuel required is in the mission request).

b. Spacecraft as suffered a serious mishap. Engine doesn't work, no attitude control, etc. Dock, and return craft to a station in LKO if it exists (within EVA distance). If not, put it in a reentry trajectory, and reenter with the capsule.

 

4. Stranded spacecraft in orbit around another world. The spacecraft is without enough fuel to return (a), or has had a serious malfunction (. (if they add life support, then that is another missing item that would be ( c) ) Orbits far more varied than the current missions (polar, retrograde, eccentric, etc).

a. Spacecraft is without necessary fuel to complete mission. The ship has a clampotron, and you refuel it to complete mission (this data would be in the mission request). Refuel is not to full, but enough to return set by mission (amount specified in contract).

b. Spacecraft as suffered a serious mishap. Engine doesn't work, no attitude control, etc. Dock, and return craft to a station in LKO if it exists (within EVA distance). If not, put it in a reentry trajectory, and reenter with the capsule.

c. Spacecraft needs life support delivered due to a mishap (or bad planning). Dock and resupply (amount specified in contract).

 

5. Stranded lander. The lander is without enough fuel to return to orbit (a), or has had a serious malfunction (. Mishaps would include cool wreck sites (like the opening screen, lol)

a. Lander is without necessary fuel to reach orbit. In this case it will be a lander with a CM in orbit. Return crew (or craft if you can) to the CM.

b. Lander as suffered a serious mishap. Engine doesn't work, no attitude control, etc. Return crew (or craft if you are capable) to the CM.

Rewards would scale to difficulty. They would include science rewards, as the player might be rescuing science collected by the competing astronauts.

 

Back to 2017...

Note that many of these don't result in getting new astronauts for the player, as they are sent home, effectively. The ability to place crafts (real crafts) in orbit or on a world would be useful functionality for perhaps other kinds of things in the future, as well, so it sees useful to enable. Think of other things that could be done using the ability to have the game spawn 3d party crafts with multiple parts. You could have more time-limited rescues. Another program's craft has inserted into an orbital transfer to the Mun that will result in a crash into the Mun in X orbits, but it has used all its fuel. I dunno, there are many fun options.

[Hotaru]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Posted by me in Oct, 2014.

Good ideas then & still good ideas. I would add that either A. the contract system should check whether the player has sent Kerbals to a destination, not just probes, before spawning rescue contracts there or B. there should be some sort of "space race" mechanic added in which the player is actively competing against other companies/agencies for contracts and prestige. A. would undoubtedly be easier to implement but B. might be more fun, at least as an option.

I'd be severely surprised if Squad implemented such a system but it'd be a good mod idea. I bet Contract Configurator could already do about 90% of it, and mods like Extraplanetary Launchpads already have the ability to spawn craft away from KSC.

 

[tater]

Yeah, I know I had a similar requirement in some post or other on the subject, that thread was easier to find since I started it (hence my quote of myself).

You should only get reduces places you've been to with kerbals. I have a better set of ideas, but it's in someone else's thread, so it's far harder to search for.

[Sgt Doomball]

I Have already suggested two similar topics for search and rescue, a.k.a. recovery missions, on the forum

[Moh1336]

As someone who loves rescue missions I wouldn't really have a problem with no monetary gain for them. I do them for the free Kerbals and because I like that sort of mission.

Like most people; when I do these kind of missions they are not exclusive. I will be doing other things. Be it tourism, putting a satellite in orbit, science, recovering an earlier craft I didn't have the tech to bring back sooner etc.

Another option would be monetary parameters. EG:

There's a Kerbal stranded in Orbit. If you launch the mission to recover the Kerbal within 7 days of accepting this contract 'Alternate Agency' will cover the fuel costs of your mission.

If you launch the mission as part of a multi-purpose operation (eg: Tourists, Science other than Crew Reports, Satellite mission and so on) 'Alternate Agency' will only cover X percent of the fuel cost. 

If you launch after 7 days you bare the full cost of the mission.

If you optionally recover the kerbal's craft you get the value of the recovered part.

If you recover the craft as part of the contract you get a discount off part price for the next X purchases of that part.

 

There's many possible ways to tweak the rewards for rescue missions. But as I said, I'm just in it for the free kerbals.

Since the price to purchase Kerbals has been raised again, I will add that I think the system is just plain odd. I see no reason for the price to go up each time you get a new Kerbal on your crew. 

I would like to see a set price per Kerbal (maybe varied slightly for specialisation) and X% added for high skill levels.
 

[tater]

Far more important for rescues to be interesting is meaningful time limits. Like the clock should start ticking when the mission appears, and the time limit to accept should also be the time limit for the mission to be completed. If it's 1 day, then you better get cracking.

[Wjolcz]

For me the rescue contracts could be gone and I wouldn't cry. The fact that kerbals cost more and more to hire and the only way to eventually get them are rescue missions is annoying. That's why I just cheat them in and name however I want.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Veeltch

[StupidAndy]

@StahnAileron they do start at level one, but since you at least have them in kerbin orbit, they automatically have level 1

[natsirt721]

I'm with Veeltch on this one - IMO the only redeeming factor of rescue missions is subsidized crew hires.  Nix the rescue contracts and cap hiring costs and everyone wins.  

[Snark]

I suppose it's a matter of taste.  I like them, myself.  I like rendezvous missions.  I like the feeling that I've helped out the lil' guys.  I like it as a handy income stream in early game.

The increasing-hire-cost dynamic doesn't really affect me, since I never ever hire kerbals from the astronaut complex, ever; and I wouldn't, even if they were free.  I'm not disagreeing with any of the feedback about this feature that anyone on this thread has brought up.  Simply that since I populate my space program exclusively with rescued kerbals, it's irrelevant to me what the astronaut complex's finances might be.

Why do I like it that way?  I dunno, probably because I like the idea that "kerbals are a precious resource".  When I take the trouble to go out and rescue one, I feel like I've really earned that kerbal, so I feel more satisfaction having the program populated that way.

On 2/16/2017 at 2:41 PM, Waxing_Kibbous said:

3) Not only distribute rescue contracts a bit more, but have more variation. It's easy to have 8+ stranded LKO Kerbals in practically the same equatorial orbit. Have some variety in the orbits in terms of inclination, direction, and orbital shape similar to other bodies.

...now, this point I strongly agree with.  I think that each successive rescue contract should jazz up the orbits more.  I like that the first contract or two is something that's near-circular in a very low orbit, since that's really easy to rendezvous with and it's a good lead-in for newer players who are still honing their rendezvous skills.  But I really don't like that they keep showing up in near-identical orbits.  Yes, there's a little variation with "stranded in low Kerbin orbit" versus "stranded in Kerbin orbit"... but not enough.

I'd like the first kerbal to be in the standard circular, very low orbit.  Each successive one would widen the parameters of the random orbit selection.  The orbits get gradually higher; more elliptical; more inclined; eventually even retrograde.  Basically, make it progressively less quick & convenient to do, with increasing challenge.  Not only will that keep it more interesting, but will also help to implicitly limit the "spam factor", because as the contracts become less convenient, the player will likely shift to other pursuits.

 

[Hotaru]

39 minutes ago, Snark said:

I suppose it's a matter of taste.  I like them, myself.  I like rendezvous missions.  I like the feeling that I've helped out the lil' guys.  I like it as a handy income stream in early game.

The increasing-hire-cost dynamic doesn't really affect me, since I never ever hire kerbals from the astronaut complex, ever; and I wouldn't, even if they were free.

I actually like rescue contracts too, and I felt kind of bad that I had to disable them to make my current career work. I think making rescue missions not-for-profit (i. e. the only reward is the Kerbal and maybe some rep) and ditching the increasing hire costs would pretty much balance things out: that way the player would have a meaningful choice between a rescue-based and a hire-based program (or some of each). As it stands now, from a gameplay point of view, hiring is pointless as long as rescues are available.

As far as variety goes, they do eventually start showing up beyond LKO--which is itself a problem, seeing as the game only checks where you've sent any vessel, kermanned or otherwise, so if you send probes first (like me) the rescuees start beating you everywhere--but I agree a little more variety to the orbits, especially in the LKO ones, would be a nice addition.

Another nice touch would be to make sure they avoid spawning in altitude ranges where they might intersect another sphere of influence, so they don't get ejected by the Mun (or crash into it) before you can rescue them. Or, alternatively, put a warning in the contract pointing out that their orbit might intersect another SoI--so time is of the essence.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

I suppose it's a matter of taste.  I like them, myself.  I like rendezvous missions.  I like the feeling that I've helped out the lil' guys.  I like it as a handy income stream in early game.

The increasing-hire-cost dynamic doesn't really affect me, since I never ever hire kerbals from the astronaut complex, ever; and I wouldn't, even if they were free.  I'm not disagreeing with any of the feedback about this feature that anyone on this thread has brought up.  Simply that since I populate my space program exclusively with rescued kerbals, it's irrelevant to me what the astronaut complex's finances might be.

Why do I like it that way?  I dunno, probably because I like the idea that "kerbals are a precious resource".  When I take the trouble to go out and rescue one, I feel like I've really earned that kerbal, so I feel more satisfaction having the program populated that way.

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that. It's your playstyle and a bit of roleplay I guess, but it would still be nice to have a choice between hiring them and rescuing. Right now after hiring multiple kerbals you run out of cash really quickly because of how increasingly costly they become even though they aren't better trained or anything. But this is a topic that would fit the thread I'm about to start.

1 hour ago, Hotaru said:

I think making rescue missions not-for-profit (i. e. the only reward is the Kerbal and maybe some rep) and ditching the increasing hire costs would pretty much balance things out: that way the player would have a meaningful choice between a rescue-based and a hire-based program (or some of each). As it stands now, from a gameplay point of view, hiring is pointless as long as rescues are available.

I very much agree with this. Choice is always better no choices at all. And the career mode still lacks that IMO.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Veeltch

[Waxing_Kibbous]

On 2/19/2017 at 2:53 AM, natsirt721 said:

I'm with Veeltch on this one - IMO the only redeeming factor of rescue missions is subsidized crew hires.  Nix the rescue contracts and cap hiring costs and everyone wins.  

Eliminating rescue contracts is a bit extreme, they are pretty good to have around. Firstly, they teach rendevous and close landings to beginning players with a decent payoff (more crew). They are also good mini-missions if you want to play for only 15-20 minutes. I think they are pretty fun to do, but IMO should be more like rare opportunities than common occurrences.

[klgraham1013]

If a game mechanics main purpose is to negate another game mechanic, you might have a problem.

If you like rescuing randomly spawning kerbals, then that's fine.  If you like them because you can avoid the absurd hiring cost mechanic, then it's not actually the rescue contracts you're interested in.  You're using them to avoid poor game design.  Which makes me question the validity of both mission and game mechanic in the first place.

Secondly, I just don't like the idea of randomly spawning kerbals.  Silly justifications in the mission text don't make it any more plausible.  I can't remember where I first heard it, but it's a great tip for writers and life in general.  "Explaining a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea."

[tater]

The problem with rescues more generically is that they are implicit reminders of a space race that would be great to play, but which doesn't actually exist---along with the "first" milestones which imply there is somehow a way to be "not first" at anything in KSP.

The solution would be for an explicit space race, since an implicit one is written all over stock play.

[KSK]

On ‎23‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 1:48 PM, tater said:

The problem with rescues more generically is that they are implicit reminders of a space race that would be great to play, but which doesn't actually exist---along with the "first" milestones which imply there is somehow a way to be "not first" at anything in KSP.

The solution would be for an explicit space race, since an implicit one is written all over stock play.

Maybe that's what KSP 2 will be. I'm not convinced that even a heavily modded version of KSP 1 would be enough to make a space race fun, although it's often pointed to as a reason for including multiplayer.

On the other hand, I respect (and agree) with a lot of your other ideas about improving Career mode, so I'm genuinely interested  to see what @tater's  Kerbal Space Race would look like.

Edited February 24, 2017 by KSK

[tater]

I've posted a lot on the subject, actually, some include a form of multiplayer that is not "real time," while others would require KSP to actually have a true foil for the player (strategically and "tactically" (driving craft based upon kerbal skill).

The multiplayer idea dispenses with "AI" altogether. A Space Race game mode would "subscribe" the player to an online database of other player's space race games with the same matrix of difficulty settings, and ideally mods. A few things need to be changed: one, time would need to become a thing, so some sort of KCT-like elements would be required, two, I think that some random failures would be ideal (mitigated by different tech choices). The players timeline of accomplishments and crafts used would be saved to this database as they play. Your game would then pick a random timeline of some other player, and use it as the opponent. If they achieved orbit in X months (note that with KCT-like elements building the rocket you designed would take weeks or months), then you will need to beat that to get the "first." On the day of the other player's accomplishments, you'll net a "news" popup showing that the Kerbalist Republiks have achieved orbit, or whatever, and you might need to risk an earlier Mun launch of you want to grab the lead.

[Hotaru]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

 The players timeline of accomplishments and crafts used would be saved to this database as they play.

Honestly this version of multiplayer sounds like it could be doable with mods pretty easily. Standardized KCT settings, plus a new mod that reads achievement dates from a file (or writes them to the file). The game already stores achievement data information in the save file anyway so all the mod would have to do would be to read and display it, then give the player appropriate rewards.

Synchronizing the files online so two players could play "against" each other might be trickier for a mod, as it would undoubtedly have to be done outside KSP, but should be possible.

[tater]

Yeah, that suggestion was really a way to have such a play style---that as I have said is entirely implicit in stock KSP anyway---with the bare minimum of effort.

[KSK]

Sounds good - and technically achievable -  but I don't think it would be my cup of tea gameplay wise. Without being able to influence the opposition in any way (yeah, having an actual AI opponent isn't a remotely realistic prospect, I know that), I think I'd just get irritated by losing to an RNG. There just aren't enough trade-offs in stock KSP to stop a (rather short) race to the bottom with spaceship designs, so eventually a space race would boil down to the winner being the person who rolled lucky on the 'malfunction didn't blow up my ship, yo,' dice more often than their opponent.

Purely a personal opinion and more a problem with stock KSP than your space race framework.