basic.syntax

A "grind" is doing something you don't like very much, knowing you will eventually progress toward an upgrade or activity you like more. Yet, if the activity you like better - is the same contract type, just in a different place: that also ought to get boring with too much repetition. Physical "grind" is reduced by increased pay, or decreased costs. Perceptual "grind" could be reduced by more variety of available activities.

> Kerbals will be able to climb small ledges, without ladders

At first glance, matrix task against method sounds good, but, players exploring and finding their own method to achieve said task, adds replay value. Players will look for the method / solution that gets the job done with least cost or least time, or make up their own challenge. I like the general idea of rewarding a result that was more efficient, less cost or time... if methods can be found to judge that, non-judgementally... lol. A "report card" grading your efforts sounds cool, but is close to making players feel bad, for not doing something in the most optimal way that the contract writer thought you should do it. The idea requires a careful hand. Ahh.. so perhaps a check on each satellite contract, to make sure it is farther out or at least +/- 15 degree different orbit plane than the last. This fits with other suggestions asking for a less totally random relationship inside contract types. This sounds cool and realistic, but, I think it would push the feeling of "grind" at players. "I HAVE to take this crummy contract." Perhaps if the bill was low enough, almost a joke, it would be more like a reminder of time passing and encouragement to keep pushing ahead, vs setting up thoughts of a "grind." (Developers understandably don't like spending time to code something most players will ignore.) I really like the idea of expanding the Kerbal world with that "other space agency" - but it needs so much thought and Squad feature work to be meaningful, it deserves its own update, post 1.0. One aspect of missed opportunities, is the fact players must check the contract building. How about a "new contracts available" pop-up message?

I think - more contract variety, so that players have a chance to find more things they prefer. Unfortunately, there is no perfect answer here. Players exhaust content faster than it can be created. It can only be made "less grindy," and I think we have to try. Complaints are inevitable (but not "the end") and some players are already hacking their configs to nuke undesired contract types. Squad could spend months on an update, we could get 4 new contract types that have diverse, interesting tasks and write nice compliments on the forums, only to be grumbling in the next week that we have played until dawn over the weekend, done 15 orbital rendezvous for different purposes, and are bored again. I think this is one reason they went with procedural contracts in the first place, because a story driven campaign (as much as I would like to have one!) is over when its over, limits some of the replay value, and if you liked it, you're crying for more to do. ### Claw, I was expecting you to throw some cold water on this brainstorming, because we've pretty much reinvented how Strategies might work in the last 3 pages - your initial charter was asking us to look for what tweaks to existing Strategies - and Contracts that would fit inside the current Contract system - would be helpful. To that end, Outsourced R&D popped up for most people as overpowered, although science availability is "overpowered" as well. I think Wanderfound summarized the problem with existing Strategies effectively, in post #47: Toward existing contracts, I think many are wanting more sensible structures to them, where one builds upon another: if you've completed a temp scan from altitude, you might later be asked to do something on the ground in the same area. Don't randomly ask for a ground activity before an aerial one. Parts tests should progress the same way, and not repeat, and probably disappear entirely once you go to another planet's SoI, since its entry-level work. Ground > air > suborbital > orbit.

Part B attempt has a happier story. "The Tumbler? Oh... you wouldn't be interested in that." - Lucius Fox, Batman Begins lol The lander can has a tiny amount of monoprop. Adding an RCS might make the difference, in some "almost to orbit" situations

Whew. The politics situation is such that, when I read the title, I had a minor panic that Russia was going to undock their ISS modules NOW. Breathing normally again

That's painful. I like the mobile platform idea, but in this case it needed to use a lot of fuel to help land (more parachutes?) - that you would have wanted to use, on your way back up. Once the aerospikes were dropped, TWR and rate of climb fell with them. So I would probably reverse the engine sequence, drop lighter engine tanks first, so you can keep the good engines burning for you, longer. I see mechjeb... which gives a ton of info in flight... I don't use that, but I have started using KER - Kerbal Engineer, to plan my EVE attempt right from the VAB. It displays a list of stages and ship's dV and TWR for each. With that you can have a good idea of how well a craft might lift on EVE, (or any selected destination,) before you get there.

"too emotionally damaged...." summary of entire series and most of its characters

nightingale strategies: I think you're on to something: choose a bold direction for your space program! Could promote replayability. Some players have been asking for how they can get out of doing unliked contract types, so a third "custom" option could find the player checking off which contract types they will have available... perhaps "pick three from this list." ** You wanted it to be permanent so the choice would have consequences... perhaps less permanence in the choice could work, if some consequences were added. After you have done a certain number of contracts, perhaps you would be allowed to go into the strategy building and ask for a "review" - where you could swap one contract type for another, costing some Reputation. That's less harsh on a player than asking them to start a new career. (It could also be paid for in the form of a new rep cap, or permanent % reduction for all future reputation gains.) **Edit: one of the problems with forcing an up-front choice, is, players won't know if they will like a particular thing unless it is explained very well, or they have done it. The most informed answer comes after you've tried to do something. So, I think this choice of "space program strategy" should occur AFTER some intro contracts or tutorial stuff, after some of the things being asked about have likely been attempted.)

Edit (added indented top section): For the reasons you go on to list, removing Outsourced R&D doesn't change much. For me, it was already removed. I didn't choose this strategy in my .90 run-through, and was pulling back 700-900 science each trip to Mun and especially Minimus, low gravity makes it easier to hit a lot of biomes. I had all the science points I needed, well before I had 4.5m Funds (under my particular game settings) to unlock the last R&D tier. Whatever parts are in the .90 top tier - I didn't "need" any of it This would be great, a sort of story-driven mini campaign to get the player on their feet, perhaps it could become the tutorial, and be skip-able. [Ground test, collect some science, reach altitude, orbit, rendezvous, Mun landing.] Then after you have done this set of linked contracts, the large pool of procedurals is opened up. Some could require a return trip, as tater suggests. tater is also suggesting a dual system: funds rewards (contracts), or science rewards (Missions). I see the Mission Science reward coming from player actions during the Mission. Perhaps you get nothing but a thank-you on the completion screen? A token amount of science points, since the majority comes from your actions? This dual system would give players a choice: do I want Funds or Science this time? What to do when the tech tree is unlocked: are players going to keep picking Science missions? To maintain value after the tech tree is unlocked, we would need more uses for science points. Perhaps also require Science points to unlock building tiers? Upkeep costs? An ultimate goal: Civilization-style "Wonder?" (Do this and you can consider your game 'won,' the solar system is Explored, be presented with an "end screen" picture signed by all the KSC staff, your space program is complete.)

We already have this in the "explore" contracts, that push players toward the next unexplored SoI. Perhaps this could be expanded to encourage other activities the player hasn't done yet. (But carefully, prepared for complaints that "you are dictating My space program!") So we have a little conflict: the system has logically been flooded with new Science points potential via Fine Print contracts, and biomes everywhere in .90, resulting in the average player unlocking the tech tree faster, than in builds prior to .90. If science should be less of a grind - than being able to afford the cool toys, then, that is where we are now. I think experienced players are biased toward wanting more challenge, more to do - and that's mostly who is writing here The developers will have to study the metrics they get back from players agreeing to send data, and decide, also factoring in advanced difficulty settings, if players are progressing "too fast." (If data collected is not good enough to make that determination, they will have to go with their own analysis and anecdotal reports, like ours here.) I remember the early forum complaints about contract rewards were closely tied in with KSC upgrades being "so expensive" and therefore, progress seemed "too grindy." Experienced players countered these complaints by pointing out the advanced game setup options where you can dial up or down the various rewards. And that if you stick with it, more rewarding contracts appear as Reputation increases. Regardless of Strategies and game setup features, the developers have to consider their intended default game balance. The best (or maybe just... the most challenging - Squad probably doesn't want to go in this direction) games force you into an agony of choice at every turn: you want to have three things, but you're only allowed to choose one at a time. Which of the three will you pick, this turn? Look at the tight agonizing balance of Firaxis' X-COM remake: back in the base, you want cool tech so you can win the war. But you need Science to get at the tech faster. To get more Science you need a lab, which costs Funds. Your troops need weapons, which cost Funds. The lab and the weapons take time to build, based on how many Engineers you can get. Which to build first: a workshop for the engineers, or a science lab? Maybe... neither one. Get out "into space" - take a mission, lose a level 3 custom-named Kerbal to an RNG accident (Nooooo!), and you might discover something cool. There are a lot of neat ideas here, and I'd love to see something of it shake out of Squad's blender, into 1.0.

Indeed, when you have more than three flights active on different contracts, remembering which ship (note rename option on command pod or probe core) goes with which contract, and overlapping flight events where you might miss a course correction or aerobrake, beg for a limited form of KAC. The TimeWarp To feature being added in 1.0, is a step in KAC's direction

FYI (link to post),

I think you're getting your wish - check this post (link) for pix

Worir4 pretty much said it, this comment about the "stock" game expands on what he wrote: without contracts, there isn't much point to them. A couple contract types in career mode require science reports above a certain orbital altitude. After you have done the "Explore [name of planet / moon]" contract, its helpful to permanently station a satellite or two with a temp probe. (A Probe core, temp probe, battery, solar panel, antenna, fuel tank, and light engine at minimum.) I recommend polar orbits, because they let you cover the entire sphere as it rotates. When these contracts pop up, you'll already have something in orbit. As you unlock other science in the tech tree, you may want to add landing legs to the probe design, adding the seismic scanner specifically, just for low gravity moons where you can land and take off easily.

I think this update to 'rescue' contracts is a good improvement, and "where do they come from?" provides a hook for future expansion (post 1.0).

Tried it a month ago when it was on steam free weekend, if you're patient and lucky, Steam promo's are a great way to graze through some great games with no money down Unfortunately, I felt I had seen enough of it, after a good long binge. After recovering from the sleep-deprived hangover, I was grateful for the imposed limit, returning my RL It's a solid game mechanic, but I wish it had more story to tell.

We'll have to wait and see, on this part of the question

Check out this thread (link)

I don't think this is the end of KSP merchandising, it is just something that has a high-tech "cool" factor. I hope to eventually see something more interactive and less expensive, like Wallygator is suggesting.

I think the idea is cool, costs are high. Costs make sense because the machines are very expensive. But this is wrong thread for 3d printing, there's 24 comment pages over here

Folks have great points on KSP inspiring, representing & recognizing real-life space flight & exploration. Fiction does inspire RL, but there is no end to the number of significant persons that could be honored in some way. If Squad decided to do anything, I favor a low-key reference.

"if deployed over water, use mode 2" kind of idea. That would be nice. I don't mind an occasional lol - handwave, when I see something illogical, if the item provides expected gameplay, and in the case of a 'universal' drill, saves me from carrying two dedicated drills.

Thanks RoverDude, for your detailed replies Edit: last week's pic and reddit explanation.

We'll need more than a drill. This is just the first part to be revealed.