Contracts and Administration Strategies

[Claw]

I'm going to try something a bit new, and give a main topic of discussion for a week or two. This thread (and any follow on series) is aimed at brainstorming ideas. As such, I welcome any and all ideas, building, branching, or proposing different approaches for the topic at hand.

---

---

The Topic: Specifically for the next week or two, I'd like to focus discussions on contracts and the administration strategies.

Suggestions of new contracts or contract extensions ideally should fit within the current style of contract system. (In other words, please don't simply suggest a complete overhaul.) Consider ideas on what (in existing contracts) you think is too rewarding or too unrewarding. Also, strategy and contract balance are intimately linked. What about the strategy system is good? And what could do with some adjusting?

Reminder:

I will reiterate again, this thread is about brainstorming. Attacking people or blatantly shooting down ideas will not be tolerated and those posts will be removed with reckless abandon. Please keep it civil and on topic, but not too far out of the solar system. I also recommend keeping posts specific and succinct, so that your point doesn't get lost in a great wall of text.

Cheers,

~Claw

Edited March 1, 2015 by Claw

[Renegrade]

Well, the elephant in the room is Outsourced R&D.

I'd much rather see that increase science returns as a percentage rather than increasing them based on funds returned, as the two scales aren't really compatible.

As it stands right now, a 25% commitment in my 10% science save results in 1 science coming from 33.889 funds. That's like 7,377 science for a million-funds contract (and those aren't too hard come by), which would finish the whole tree in a contract and a half. Or like 553 science for a flag planting on Minmus.

If instead it was a percentage boost to science - for instance, 25% commitment gives 20% extra science or somesuch, it wouldn't matter how many funds I brought in (millions, billions, who cares?), as the 20% extra science would only apply to science returns. Thus if a Minmus landing gives me 30-ish science, with a 20% bonus that would be 30*1.2 = 36 science, vs the crazy flag-planting example of 553-ish science.

(Also contracts shouldn't have any significant science returns at all. Maybe 1-2 points tops in a 100% science game)

[Invader Myk]

This might fall more into the "complete overhaul" category, but I've got to put it out there any way.

Use the contract system to unlock parts. After the tech node is bought using science currency, a slew of contracts would become available, without expiry, that "test" the new parts available in that node. After a part's contract is completed, then that part is available for normal purchase in the VAB/SPH. This would work best if all "part test" contracts were only available if the tech node for the part had been bought.

I feel this would shift the contracts from "do and forget" to "I'm doing this for a purpose"

[juvilado]

Some tests landed on kerbin are so easy to achieve they should be removed.

Contracts coul be organized related to the body they have to be done at.

Succesfully contracts trying new prototypes could give you the part available for its use.

Contracts for putting in orbit telescopes, for cartographying bodies (with new science devices maybe, long missions than require changing orbit latitude/longitude)

Contracts for invetigating anomalies in bodies like: NPC vessel or debris, geological events (volcano,liquid flow, geyser, ice geyser, gas leak),

Contracts for removing dangerous debris.

[Superfluous J]

All contracts need less science awards. Possibly eradicate all science from contracts across the board. We have a way to get science, it's called "doing science." We don't need setting up a base on Minmus to give us more science than our instruments would. My current career I have literally done NO science except that which completes contracts (and those are usually for 0 science because I do the same stuff over and over) and I've completed the tech tree. This was on normal. This is bad.

Rescue contracts are weird. I don't know how to fix them. But having someone lost in a 100x100 orbit within seconds of me breaking the Kerbin World Record of height (70km, aka "escape the atmosphere") is weird and wrong.

When you decline the same contract several times, they need to start offering them less often. This will serve a dual purpose of giving you what you want, and dissuading you from declining contracts for what you want to do, but that are a bit outside your comfort zone. If you want to build a base, and are offered a contract to build a base for 13 Kerbals with a science lab, cupola, and espresso machine and you decline it, you may not see another base contract AT ALL until you've completed a few contracts. However if you decline a few part tests in atmosphere, you will be happy to see them offered far less in lieu of something more fun.

I don't have opinions on the strategies. I don't like them in general and if you cut all science from contracts you end up with 2 possible strategies: Convert funds to rep or rep to funds.

[juvilado]

I just noticed there arent contracts for "commercial" flights to "private" kerbals. Some contracts could be done there: take X Kerbals (not kerbonauts) put them in orbit and transfer them to a previously deployed space station; or take them to the mun into the in-mun "resort" (finally some use to an outpost!) and fly them back of course. No science rewards here, just $$$. Maybe some comodities woud be required in the vessel/outpost...

[Jouni]

Make the achievement contracts automatic. The rewards from breaking an altitude record, orbiting Kerbin, landing on the Mun, or walking on Duna should not require accepting a contract. Of course, you won't get any advance for them, unless you count the rewards from the previous achievements as advance. In order to make the game a bit less grindy, science from achievements should replace science from crew reports and EVA reports completely. After all, the kerbals aren't complete idiots, so they will probably observe their surroundings and report their findings on their own.

[juvilado]

Make the achievement contracts automatic. The rewards from breaking an altitude record, orbiting Kerbin, landing on the Mun, or walking on Duna should not require accepting a contract. Of course, you won't get any advance for them, unless you count the rewards from the previous achievements as advance. In order to make the game a bit less grindy, science from achievements should replace science from crew reports and EVA reports completely. After all, the kerbals aren't complete idiots, so they will probably observe their surroundings and report their findings on their own.

The problem with this is that often you dont have so much energy in your vessel to report everything you want or to activate all devices simultaneously, so if this gets automated youll lose some interesting strategic point of the game dont you think so? Apart from that, i find the idea quite interesting. A path in the middle way could be that the game had an option that automatically tells you when your active vessel could make a new science-reward experiment, observation, whatever, and then each player decides if it is he tiime or not to do it.

[Hcube]

Well, it's not about sending a ship to a specific point; what i meant was more like "Get into orbit and do this, this, and this, and then, the contract is completed although there is still a recovery site shown on the map and you will get rewared a bit more if you manage to end the mission by landing there.

[Claw]

Great ideas so far, thank you.

Just to avoid confusion, suggesting new contracts is helpful, but my intent for this thread is to discuss the system in a broad sense, and what is specifically "good" or "bad" about it.

Such as:

Some tests landed on kerbin are so easy to achieve they should be removed.

Which is broad, and that's what I'm asking for...but also specifics, such as which of the "some tests landed at kerbin" are so easy?

and...

All contracts need less science awards. Possibly eradicate all science from contracts across the board. We have a way to get science, it's called "doing science."

Also broad about the system(good), but provides specific about the "what" and "why" (also good).

Hopefully that makes sense?

Cheers,

~Claw

[tater]

I disagree entirely with 5thHorseman regarding contracts and science in career mode. I think the "contracts" should help drive science.

Anyway, here are ideas I posted in other threads about contracts:

Generally, I'd like to see the contract system change into a two-tier system. The "Explore" and other "pure science" contracts would be considered "missions/programs" that your space center dreams up vs "contracts," which are launching satellites, testing parts for subcontractors, etc. All ideas below assume that Mission is created by your employees, and Contract is a 3d party.

Right now, you get those "milestone" contracts… launch a rocket, achieve an altitude of X, etc. Many new players likely don't realize that if your first launch is overly successful, you miss out on the various altitude records contracts, etc.

So how about the game has those early missions replaced with "Missions" akin to the "Explore the Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc" contracts (many would have small science rewards).:

"Achieve Spaceflight!"

This would be like the "Explore the Mun" contract, but the end goal would be leaving Kerbin atmosphere.

Internal milestones might be:

1. Launch a rocket (same as contract now)

2. Reach 5000m (same as now)

3-5(?) Same altitude records already in game, but they are sub-requirements, so if you do 2 or more in one mission, you get credit.

6. (whatever 2d to last number is) Take a crew report, or science from space.

7. Achieve orbit

Next would be:

"Suborbital Science"

(note that these contracts need not be taken, this set is really a cash farm for noobs, IMO. If they really screw up, they can do some of these to get back on their feet)

Milestones here would be various science from points in the atmosphere, and perhaps sensible parts testing (use a parachute, etc.)

Examples (add more!)

1. Take crew reports from various altitudes.

2. Safely land craft in various kerbin biomes (not too many, but water, plains, etc).

3. Stage a rocket

4. ?

Next:

"Orbital Spaceflight"

The mission requirements here would be to put spacecraft in different orbits, some defined as satellite contracts are now, perhaps. Other missions might include rendezvous. The goal is teaching new players, so the milestones should have this in mind. I'd like the clamp-o-tron-jr to be available early for this. Perhaps very low-thrust attitude control jets very early, and only the mono in the pod? The might include, for example:

1. Place spacecraft in an inclined orbit.

2. Create a highly elliptical orbit.

3. Take science/crew reports from a couple distances.

4. Do an EVA.

5. Do an EVA where you let go of the craft.

6. (assuming a docking port and attitude control) Successfully dock. (This could be a single rocket with 2 docking ports)

7. Successfully use a maneuver node to do X. (assuming a contract can check for this---it would look for the node as "green/complete")

8. Rendezvous and dock two craft launched at least XX minutes apart. (Forcing a real rendezvous as a teaching aid)

These mostly use existing mechanisms to flesh out the early game experience for new players, as well as providing guidance as to what needs to be learned.

New rescue missions ideas:

1. Stranded kerbal in Kerbin orbit. Like current contract, 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 clampotron, 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.

Satellite and station/base contract variants:

1. Place satellite/stations/bases. Satellite contracts are COMMERCIAL. As soon as the orbit is fulfilled, you lose ownership of it. The same is true for bases built by contract (offer some as missions/programs from within KSC that you would own).

2. Add to station/base. A 3d party station or base (that YOU already delivered as per #1 above) wants another component added (docked). Ideally for planetary bases, we'd have a way to merely place them within some range, not have to "dock" everything.

3. Resupply or man station/base. Player is contracted to deliver or return a 3d party kerbal or kerbals to a station or base (commercial crew ). Player might be required to deliver fuel/mono to station, or merely "dock" with a craft that includes a hitchhiker or something (a supply pod).

4. Repair satellite/station/base. A 3d party satellite, station or base (as per #1) has sustained damage and requires an engineer of level X to repair it. An appropriate, repairable part s broken in the craft you launched for that level engineer to fix on EVA.

Edited March 1, 2015 by tater

[Whirligig Girl]

First of all, I think some contracts should come from The Space Program itself. Specifically, all explore contracts or contracts that would directly benefit the space program. Maybe The Space Program's ingame name would be that of the save file's title, and thus instead of saves being labeled "Player Name", they should be labeled "Space Program Name."

I use the word overhaul, but I'm only talking about a specific contract type, not the whole system.

Station and Base Building is a tricky thing. It seems to suggest that you should be building many stations and bases throughout the system, even 5 in LKO. This isn't what station contracts should be. Station contracts need an overhaul.

Here's how the process should go:

"Build a new Station Core around Planet X" This would be simple. Just have a satellite that can support at least one Kerbal and have Y amount of docking ports, and have power and an antenna. This would be a basic core for further expansion. This type of contract would only be given by The Space Program (or the World First Society, as long as it's not a company). Your station core is now ready for expansion.

"Attach X module to Y station" This would be more complex. This contract could be a corporation, such as Rockomax wanting you to put up a fuel module, or the Space Program wanting to put up a habitation module, or either the Space Program or Zaltronic Electronics might want a large solar array for the station that generates Z power. These modules wouldn't have to have their own power (unless they are solar arrays or generators) or antenna, all they would need is to dock to Station Y, and be able to be docked to.

"Send crew to a space station." The Space Program wants you to bring crew to a space station if it's not already full. Of course, you could decline it if you think that even if it does have more seats, it's "full" in a maximum-crew sense.

What about Bases?

Bases are very similar. Almost exactly the same. The difference is that you don't have to dock modules, you just have to land them within 1 kilometer of another part of the base. Bases would also have contracts for modules that can mine fuel. This would open up a whole bunch of contracts about replenishing station fuel. If you have empty or nearly-empty fuel tanks in orbit, a company might want you to fix that. Rockomax, Jeb's Junkyard, [Roverdude's Mining Company], or The Space Program would have you refuel the station, maybe with a specific modifier to specify if it comes from a base, another station, or if it can be anywhere (launched from Kerbin).

[Rolanvorxariat]

Tater, go join the dev team, now. (just kidding, but still...)

Tater +rep

EDIT: Oh, and Gregrox, you brilliant ninja...

Gregroxmun +rep but i can't because I gave you too much already.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Rolanvorxariat

[tater]

5thHorseman, yeah, that's what I was getting at at the end of my post just above. Some bases/stations are 3d party, others would be programs/missions from your own staff (Linus and Werner). You are entirely right regarding the name change that makes it clear the new parts are to be ADDED to an existing station/base.

The whole base paradigm needs to allow (as we both said) for proximity to be what matters, not "docking." That or add something like KAS that allows parts to be linked via EVA (even if the link is invisible).

BTW, regarding "contract" science, I'm thinking a lot in terms of GOOD parts testing. Like testing lander legs on the Mun, etc.

[Laie]

About that outsorced R&D thing:

Cpt.Rechaud (Rimbault? Rombeau? Sorry, I'm bad about names) summed it up nicely: reputation happens in dozens of points, science in hundreds of points, funds in many thousands. However, the existing strategies convert them in similar rates of about 1:5. One would need to figure out the average payout of contracts (I'm too lazy to do that atm) in order to come up with sane conversion rates; I guess it would be something along the lines of 20,000 funds <-> 50 science <-> 1 rep.

Maybe reputation needs a special treatment on top of that. Making a Rep->anything deal comes with a huge reputation hit as you adopt the strategy; I have the impression that one cannot recover from this, that it's impossible build a good reputation as long as any reputation->something strategy is in place.

Other than that, the "firsts" and "explore $body" contracts should be in a separate category / not count towards the maximum number. Maybe even auto-accept and autocomplete, so that going to Minmus on your first flight would trigger all the altitude and orbit firsts and provide the payout for a Minmus exploration.

[Whirligig Girl]

Now onto Rescue contracts. I don't think people buy the whole "getting pulled by ropes" thing, especially if the same mistake happens multiple times to multiple companies. Rescue Contracts should always be in the form of a procedural/premade craft (specific to the company) that is empty, without fuel, in space.

We know they're supposed to be in places other than LKO now, which is cool. But I think that instead of just placing them near a single command pod, they should have more of a story. Spaceships that are crashed, especially if they are useless machines (Like a poodle engine on a monoprop tank). This might also help new players to find out what not to do if they can take notice that so many of these contraptions failed. So I guess there would be several types of ships. Derelict Ships, which were designed badly; Stock Craft, which were designed "almost-good"; and Player Made ships, which go across the whole spectrum!

Before 0.24 added contracts, I had a challenge running for a while where I stranded Kerbals across the system in various ways that I thought to be interesting, then sent out the save file and told people to rescue them. (And when searching for the thread, I found out that Metaphor also had a similar challenge)

So I don't mean to toot my own horn, but in retrospect I think that would be a great way to implement rescue contracts, except make it procedural instead of manual.

[Robotengineer]

I would like to see more contracts that make sense, not 'Test Basic jet Engine landed on the Mun.' Base contracts make sense, Station contracts make sense, even some testing contracts make sense.

On strategies, they should be: A) A long-term strategy that you have to 'renew' every Kerbin year and has an expiration date. Short term boosts to a specific mission, i.e you spend 50,000 funds to give a 10% science boost to all instruments on a probe you are sending to some planet. The current, spend a little bit of some currency and then it takes a cut of that currency each time you get some of that currency, and turns it into a different currency strikes me as not very well thought out. I think it should be that it draws out x number of currency per Kerbin month/year then you get a buff on the return of the currency that you want to get. i.e you spend 250 rep per year to to get a 5% boost to science or funds. Then when it expires, if you want to continue it it only costs 225 rep per year because it is already in place. I'm only using rep as an example, not as the only currency that would work, rep could be exchanged for a different currency.

[Whirligig Girl]

I would like to see more contracts that make sense, not 'Test Basic jet Engine landed on the Mun.' Base contracts make sense, Station contracts make sense, even some testing contracts make sense.

On strategies, they should be: A) A long-term strategy that you have to 'renew' every Kerbin year and has an expiration date. Short term boosts to a specific mission, i.e you spend 50,000 funds to give a 10% science boost to all instruments on a probe you are sending to some planet. The current, spend a little bit of some currency and then it takes a cut of that currency each time you get some of that currency, and turns it into a different currency strikes me as not very well thought out. I think it should be that it draws out x number of currency per Kerbin month/year then you get a buff on the return of the currency that you want to get. i.e you spend 250 rep per year to to get a 5% boost to science or funds. Then when it expires, if you want to continue it it only costs 225 rep per year because it is already in place. I'm only using rep as an example, not as the only currency that would work, rep could be exchanged for a different currency.

Honestly, I don't think there's ANY reason to test any engine on the Mun or Minmus that can't be done from Vacuum tests. Maybe landing gear tests to see if dust is a problem, or maybe testing rocket engines on Eve or Duna, but not Mun or Minmus or Ike or GIlly or any airless body.

Edited March 1, 2015 by GregroxMun
AAAAAAAAARG! DOULBE POST!! >:(

[tater]

Note that if they use the model I suggest above (that stations and base contracts can be either 3d party (Contracts) or your own (Missions), then stranded kerbals can be related to those facilities for anyone hating the idea of competing programs being a thing. A 3d party station might have a Contract to deliver rescue craft to support X kerbals being evacuated, for example. Another might ask to deliver to the 3d party an orbital tug of some min requirements. Once craft are docked to the station, those craft could be procedurally stranded. Joefred Kerman used all the fuel in the tug, leaving it stranded, rescue Joefred by refueling his tug. A munar base contract might require that a lander be left at the base for their use. That lander was taken by Dunman Kerman to in vestige a crater in the polar regions… and landed poorly, now reduce him and return him to his munar base.

In those examples, all rescues require no suspension of disbelief, because the player delivered those kerbals to the facility in the first place, as well as the crafts they screwed up with.

[Whirligig Girl]

Another thing that I dislike about contracts is that you have to use them. Why can't I just fly to the Mun and have people at home say "Yay you landed on the Mun, you're awesome and reputable, have some money!"

[TheMoonRover]

Part test contracts should be made much more logical (why would you want to test a jet engine landed at Moho?) and could be required to get the full functionality of some parts (for example you are asked to run the skipper engine in flight over Kerbin, but you find it overheats a little too easily or doesn't have enough gimbal etc. You complete the contract and the space centre gives feedback to the manufacturer. The manufacturer then works on the engine to bring it up to its usual stats.)

Part test contracts for Launch Clamps should be removed altogether. They're too easy for "landed at Kerbin" and impossible anywhere else (without save file editing or a mod which lets you launch on another planet)

Contracts to find easter eggs and maybe run a particular experiment whilst there (these contracts would be rare but reward a lot of science)

Tourism contracts. (Tourists have no experience skills and require a comfortable seat i.e. inside a hitchhiker storage container or cupola etc.)

As an endgame contract for advanced players, a Grand-Tour (which is apparently already in the code. It shows up in the cheats menu but doesn't do anything)

[tater]

Another thing that I dislike about contracts is that you have to use them. Why can't I just fly to the Mun and have people at home say "Yay you landed on the Mun, you're awesome and reputable, have some money!"

The entire funding model for career is contact/mission based. As such, contracts, and KSC "Missions" should drive everything. If time mattered, then we could talk about having a budget to work within, and contracts could go away as a primary thing. Until then, they are THE mechanism we have to work with. It's important to remember that science from every "biome" (lifeless biomes, go figure) is every bit as arbitrary as a contract.

[basic.syntax]

Rescue Contracts should always be in the form of a procedural/premade craft (specific to the company) that is empty, without fuel, in space.

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

[tater]

Another thing, science right now is entirely useless, except as currency for tech. Useless. In 1.0, we will have our first useful science, presumably, scanning for resources. That mechanism needs to be really worked on, and made into tiers of science that depend on completing other science tasks, not just for resources, but simply for science!

If we had something like that, the contract nature of science in career would be moot.

First and foremost science should be USEFUL.

Make the map view as vague as it should be for given worlds based upon telescope observation from Kerbin. The only way to be able to zoom in on map view would be tied to gaining orbital science (mapping). Want to unlock habitat parts? Have some total manned orbital science collected as a requirement (a totally new paradigm for science to tech would be required there).

Science from surface collection in various regions? You need to map them, first, to put the geology in context. Make the planetary science interconnected, not just land, click, "Science!" Make things that egenrate data on the spot be 100% transmittable, and stuff like surface samples 0% transmittable (a later part can be a sampler for a probe that generates some amount of science for broadcast).

In a perfect world, the kerbol system would have some random elements. Even if it is minor, like the exact mass, atmospheric height and density, etc being all that varies. Then you need to send a probe or astronauts to orbit FIRST, to gain the science needed for whatever your goals are (your stock lander for that world in the past won't cut it, because the gravity is now a little higher).

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

Meh. Having a single piece of junk nearby doesn't cut it, IMO. It's exactly the same mission (except on a planet, which is good), but with a prop. Hopefully it is coded so that any craft file can be used for the rescued craft.

One, such missions need a sensible way to apply them. If the player has not gone to Duna, and there is no competing program that we can pace ourselves with, I don't want to see a Duna rescue mission appear months before I am ready for Duna. Even if I was ready, I don't see a lone kerbal surviving alone in that cupola for the length of time it will take for my rescue mission to arrive. A stranded verbal on Duna should have at least a reasonable habitat, with power, etc. Otherwise they look as goofy as testing a jet engine on the mun.

Edited March 1, 2015 by tater

[Crzyrndm]

Strategies:

If the current style of conversion remains (converting from one currency to another), I would like to see one change in function and a good smacking around of the numbers

Change in function:

Make the conversion factor constant or decreasing with increasing commitment. The current system you increase your commitment and so get more output and the conversion increases in efficiency. This is somewhat backwards IMO.

The numbers:

The numbers I used for Sane Strategies are 400 funds : 5 reputation : 1 science. On top of that, there is 20% of the conversion that is lost (so converting 1k funds would give: 1000 * 5/400 * 0.8 = 10 rep). 5% commitment on a 100k contract gives you just under 50 rep (before it gets screwed over by the exponential decay that is).

For decaying returns I set the 100% commitment factor to be 70% of the base factor. This gives a nice curve that continues to increase output while still creating a notable loss of efficiency.

All numbers and equations used to generate the conversion factors for Sane Strategies can be found here.

---

If we don't have to stick to the same conversion style, I much prefer the alternate strategies I made which trade on collection efficiency. Instead of converting 'x' science or rep to funds, you lose x% of the science/rep you collected and gain y% on your funds income. This means that if you don't collect any science, you still don't get any science (which strategies and contracts broke well and truly...).

---

---

---

---

Contracts

• Testing while landed on Kerbin should be scrapped entirely. It's free currency, and thats all it is. Lets just assume that the various companies can manage this themselves.
  
• Testing while splashed down on Kerbin is only very slightly harder, would like to see it scrapped for reasons stated above
  
• Testing parts should require having them running for a short period where applicable
  * No testing an engine with no fuel source, no antenna testing without Ec, etc. (outright declares jet engine in an un-oxygenated situation contracts to be a bug)
  
  
  * Makes next point a bit less ezmode with engines and the like
  
  
  * Allows Engines to be tested with fuel tanks (which currently have no tests). Eg. run x engine with y fuel tank in z flight conditions (obviously needs some thought as to how the fuel flow from multiple tanks is dealt with. Maybe just a volume of fuel needs to be used instead of a specific tank part)

  
  

• Tests should complete when the part is running or activated in any way. Having to screw around with staging and/or right click is awkward. I should be able to use action groups, right click activation, staging, or any other activation method (engines also need a minimum output thrust to prevent throttle limiting to zero and the like)
  
• Rescue contracts should require the player achieving atleast one step past the rescue location (eg. to get the kerbin orbit ones, you should have atleast entered an SOI other than Kerbins)
  
• Kerbin atmosphere part test rewards need to be atleast somewhat rewarding. Being spammed with contracts that give you less than 1000 funds total is just a waste of time (even if the vehicle is small and single stage, the recovery factor and occasional accident blows any chance of profit)
  
• Rewards for contracts involving parts should have an exponentially decaying or logarithmic scaling with part value. This would allow the more expensive parts to not give absolutely insane rewards for tests in Kerbin orbit while still getting enough for cheaper parts to make sense (eg. reward += k1 * part value + k2 * log(part value); NOTE: k1 should be lower for tests close to kerbin where recovery is more likely, and maybe higher for parts with a low impact tolerance)
  
• Solar orbits could do with a lot more specific zoning based on deviation from Kerbin's orbit rather than just using the two science areas for multipliers (as far as I can tell anyway).
  

Edited March 1, 2015 by Crzyrndm