Do you use strategies?

[spaceBrezel]

Voted yes because i am using one (open source tech program 100% science -> reputation) right now in my normal career game.

Didnt use a strategy till i finished the tech tree because of the new downsides they added in 1.0

[mikegarrison]

Did they fix the problem where the reputation strategies would steal reputation from your overall total, rather than just from what you earned on that contract? This would send you spiraling into negative rep very quickly.

[SkyRender]

I used to tweak the funds-to-science strategy to be 1/10th as powerful and use that on occasion, but now it's more like 1/2,000th as effective and thus not very helpful. Once the tech tree is cleared out, however, Open-Source Tech Program is kinda nice for a little extra Reputation out of the Science you can't do a thing with any longer.

[Geschosskopf]

Strategies are overly complex and I feel like they offer no benefit. I think the game balancing extremists may have asked Squad to balance strategies to the point of uselessness.

Yeah, IMHO too many people are too concerned too loudly without other people play their own single-player games. Balance is only important in multiplayer. Single-player should be laissez faire.

But back on topic, in 1.0+, my observation is that science rewards have largely been eliminated from contracts, even in Easy Mode where you get like 200% of it. Gone are nearly all the part test contracts, replaced by scads of rescues and tourism things. Used to be, you could move rapidly along the tech tree doing part testing, but no longer. At the same time, the total amount of science needed has increased greatly due to way more nodes on the tree, and the science needed to move up a size in rocket diameter has also increased due to all the necessary parts now being spread across more nodes (such as now being REQUIRED to buy airplane nodes because that's where the fairings are).

So, the post-1.0 situation is that you need tons of science points and the only way to acquire them is to grind out repeated landings on different Mun and Minmus biomes. This means you need lots of money. The only currency that's expendable, therefore, is rep. However, changing rep to science isn't much good, and changing rep to money isn't much better. Rep seems to do better in providing more lucrative contracts than it does being converted. This means that in general, it's better not to use any strategies until the tech tree is unlocked, at which point you can turn all science into money, and then all rep into money once you max that out, too.

Bottom line: Career mode is a lot less fun in 1.0+. Even in easy mode, it's a grind of repetitive Mun and Minmus landings, interspersed or combined with grindy, repetitive tourism and satellite launch contracts to pay for all the Mun and Minmus trips. Gone are the imaginative, entertaining, and bizarre part test ships with convoluted mission profiles. Gone is the strategic use of strategies.

[problemecium]

I used them in 0.90, but when I started 1.0 I decided to abstain in order to maintain a higher challenge level. It worked ._.

[FlyingPete]

Never found them helpful. The only one that I think is worth using is the science->funds one, once you've unlocked the tech tree. Earlier in the game, it seems like you don't really have enough of anything to justify the setup cost and constant drain on that particular resource.

[AbacusWizard]

Yeah; the only use I've found for strategies is converting science to money after finishing the tech tree so experiments are still worthwhile (barely).

[Sattorin]

I pick up Reputation->Science immediately, but only at 25%.

On Hard mode, that gives you at least 1 precious science point for every contract completed, which is EXTREMELY useful in the early game.

[Rufledt]

Still haven't used strategies yet. I may look into that, but i'm happy to keep playing without them

[Merinsan]

I've set the strategy to convert funds to science at about 30%, for 2 reasons:

1. I seem to be swimmiing in money.

2. I don't seem to be getting much science.

Both of these things may or may not be related to Kerbals doing stupid things and getting stuck in orbit.

[Frederf]

My first few starts on 1.0 hard career I automatically put rep > science at 25%... BUT Later I realized that it keeps you from getting good contracts! not only that but the rewards round down. So a 1 rep no science mission would end up providing no rep or science

Up until 4 rep you just lose one rep and gain no science doing that ...

Does anywhere tell you that? I wanted to use rep->sci but I had no idea that rep controlled your contract quality.

[Sattorin]

Does anywhere tell you that? I wanted to use rep->sci but I had no idea that rep controlled your contract quality.

AFAIK, the lower your reputation is, the less difficult/rewarding the contracts will be.

In Hard Mode, I think it's still worthwhile to trade rep for science. Also, it has always rounded up the science for me... so every single contract that I complete (that gives at least 1 reputation) will give at least 1 science.

[bitbucket]

I certainly got a lot of use out of them in .25/.90, but they've been given such a thorough tenderizing with the nerf bat that the only one I think I'll bother with is science->funds after the tech tree is done.

[Superfluous J]

I plan on using them when I get a surplus of something.

So far nothing yet.

[Grumman]

I used 25% reputation -> science immediately, then 60% reputation -> science once I had enough cash to upgrade.

Science income is terrible in 1.0. I am still lacking what I consider basic tools for a good Mun landing, and only have atomic rockets because I'm exploiting the prototypes. Cash income is good, but I don't want to use that because cash income is the one resource which is consumed just by playing the game - once you have a part unlocked it's unlocked forever, and reputation can be regained if you can still build rockets, but without cash you could potentially be forced back to smaller, inferior rocket designs. So I trade reputation for science to make up for the annoyingly low science income without potentially causing my space program to backslide.

[Superfluous J]

Science income is terrible in 1.0. I am still lacking what I consider basic tools for a good Mun landing, and only have atomic rockets because I'm exploiting the prototypes.

Wow we have different definitions of "basic tools for a good Mun landing." I'm nowhere near nuke and I'm about to send an Apollo-style mission to Mun. I love having the Jr docking port so low in the tree. That (and landing gear in the starter plane node) makes up for a lot of the ... part placements there.

[T-Bouw]

The balance of the three currencies is the best I've experienced so far, but I need a little personal tweak.

% funds -> science at 5 % dedication is the strategy for me even at the very start of a new career.

I'm not good (yet) at maximizing my science-gains from missions, yet I can make fairly cheep craft that get the job done.

[CorBlimey]

100% science to funds only gives about 50k for a full MPL of science (~=500 * 100). That isn't enough to cover the maintenance costs (topping up with data, topping up with snacks etc).

The science to funds for science in the field should be an ickle bit higher, perhaps 150.

[LostOblivion]

In a word, no.

In more words than I care to count, yes, I did, but only when they first came, but I soon realised the "buy science for money" strategy was highly OP. I know they've changed it, but I burned myself. :-P

[TheMoonRover]

I used to use the OP strategy to convert funds to science, and also the increased recovery value strategy, but both have now been nerfed.

When I have unlocked the entire tech tree I will get the strategy to convert 100% of science rewards to funds, and convert any leftover science to funds using that new instant converter thing.

EDIT: I agree with LostOblivion, below. The funds to science strategy was severely nerfed, and rightly so.

Edited May 10, 2015 by TheMoonRover

[LostOblivion]

I'm glad it got severely nerfed. You shouldn't be able to treat science like a currency. Hard work and creativity wins the day, and unlocks the tech tree.

[Wardstone111]

I always end up using the bale out fund occationally. I use the entry fee for parts and keep making myself almost bankrupt.

[Randazzo]

I turn science into funds once I'm done with the tree as well. With my current setup it yields a significant amount of funds.

I have a station in orbit of Kerbin with a stock MPL and a Kerbal Akademy from Roverdude and always stop over there on the way back from wherever and load both up with data to process before recovering. If I run out in-between "big" missions I can just send a crew to the Mun or Minmus to gather up more data, and this costs me almost nothing at this point thanks to the infrastructure I have set up. Basically I just pay for fuel in my spaceplane to get a crew up to K-Station alpha and then use the transport there to take them to either moon, both of which have stations with landers in place. Everything already in space gets it's fuel from the refinery on Minmus and requires no surface-launched resupply.

I'm also reusing a single interplanetary vessel at this point, just swapping out the lander it carries for whatever planet I'm heading to, and it has an MPL on-board. Trips to Joolian moons leave plenty of time to process data while in transit either direction.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Randazzo