Satellite placing of contract

[Daze]

HI guys, there's a thing that i've mind since long time, why you have the possibility of control (and maybe even deorbit) the satellites that you have placed in space for other agencies? I think it's simply crazy and those shouldn't be controllable since you have put those in correctly orbit. And obviously this speech extend to space stations, you should have control only when you put it in orbit or when you add more modules. Absolutely not every time.

What do you think about?

[Claw]

I think this has come up a few times. It's a tough call of game play balance.

- One concept of contracts is that you are contracted to do this one thing, and when it's done you should be completely un-involved after that. (i.e. You turn over control of the satellite/station/base to the "agency" that contracted you.)

- The other concept is that contracts are used as a means to pull (or encourage) the player along to build or do something specific, but still allow freedom to do it in their own way.

You are correct, leaving the craft in the hands of the player sort of ruins the "put craft X in orbit Y" contract philosophy from a real world standpoint. Because I can tag that contract then go do whatever I want. In essence, "stealing" it back from the agency that issued the contract. (Which feels "wrong.")

But from a gameplay standpoint, the major disadvantage with "handing over" a craft to another agency is that it creates a situation where by the player is disincentivized to do anything beyond the bare minimum. If a contract says put up a lab with a docking port and power, that's all that will happen. Not only does it encourage building only the minimum, but the player will be penalized for adding anything extra or spending time to make it look cool. Because the second that thing is establish in orbit, it's completely gone and can't be used as part of a growing infrastructure.

I don't know what the "best" way is here. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but personally I tend to lean toward the "give freedom to the player" side of things.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Daze]

I think this has come up a few times. It's a tough call of game play balance.

- One concept of contracts is that you are contracted to do this one thing, and when it's done you should be completely un-involved after that. (i.e. You turn over control of the satellite/station/base to the "agency" that contracted you.)

- The other concept is that contracts are used as a means to pull (or encourage) the player along to build or do something specific, but still allow freedom to do it in their own way.

You are correct, leaving the craft in the hands of the player sort of ruins the "put craft X in orbit Y" contract philosophy from a real world standpoint. Because I can tag that contract then go do whatever I want. In essence, "stealing" it back from the agency that issued the contract. (Which feels "wrong.")

But from a gameplay standpoint, the major disadvantage with "handing over" a craft to another agency is that it creates a situation where by the player is disincentivized to do anything beyond the bare minimum. If a contract says put up a lab with a docking port and power, that's all that will happen. Not only does it encourage building only the minimum, but the player will be penalized for adding anything extra or spending time to make it look cool. Because the second that thing is establish in orbit, it's completely gone and can't be used as part of a growing infrastructure.

I don't know what the "best" way is here. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but personally I tend to lean toward the "give freedom to the player" side of things.

Cheers,

~Claw

I'm ok for the thing of that too much limit will make the most of the player overract but i also think that the "perfect way" should be in the middle, maybe give to the player full ability to customize craft, but if you deorbit the satellite 2 seconds after you have put it in orbit your reputation will go down

[tater]

I think there should be a separation of commercial Contracts done for 3d parties (place satellite/station/base, then lose control of it), and Missions organic to your own space program.

The 3d party satellites/stations/bases could then be tagged for future commercial contracts for resupply, manning, crew transfer, new modules added, repair, and even the (excellent) suggestion for deorbiting.

The sats, stations, and bases built yourself, or via "Missions" your program staff suggests to you (functionally just contracts with a different label), will have similar requests for resupply, etc.

[hidconsp]

For me, I don't feel like build something better than bare minimum even for now.

I just have one design that gets modified a little bit every time for the contract, put the satellite for 10 second, and land it somewhere for the refund.

If the satellite is taken from me, on the other hand, I think I would put some effort in designing it to get the most out of it. (i.e. get some research point / finish other mission along with it / use it as fuel station later)