contracts on hard difficulty are completely illogical!!

[sedativechunk]

So I've been doing really well in contract mode so far on hard, and although some aspects (especially in the beginning) are a grind I like the unique challenges of them. With that being said, I think contracts need to be more logically given.

For example, I am now just starting to explore Duna. The ONLY thing I have done up to this point regarding Duna is send a probe there, which crashed because I didn't do the parachutes right. Before you know it, the KSP agency is assigning me contracts to take tourist on vacation to Duna and freaking LAND them there. Really?? That sounds about as bad of an idea as the real life "Mars One" mission. Forget rovers, forget the historic first steps on Duna. Let's just send tourist there already. Not to mention, for whatever reason I am not allowed to unlock the MK2 command pod yet in the tech tree, so I can't even transport that many Kerbals into space at once!

You know, I don't mind playing the game in a progressive manner, but I think the contracts need to better match where you are in the game. It doesn't make sense to ask me to take Kerbals to land on Duna when I haven't even done so with a regular kerbalnaut yet. Yes, you can decline the contracts, but still, some of them are completely illogical. Honestly, I don't think there should be ANY tourist missions until way later in the game, when you have a lot of experience and parts unlocked to do so. It seems ridiculous to be taking tourist to Duna so early. That's just my opinion.

[treejoe4]

half of these problems seem to come about because Squad don't really play the game

[Kegereneku]

That problem come at every difficulty.

The good news is that KSP do have all the framework to make it work well.

My own suggestion to 'fix' the Contract System :

- Filter impossible / absurd mission, "This is Kerbal" don't make a mission to test equipment/send tourist in frustratingly incoherent way more "fun".

(or a least make it the exception, like a Seat + Booster, test mission)

- Prevent the suggestion of WORLD FIRST ! through cheap contract.

- STOP using all parameter ! What fun is there at knowing you missed to test X part because of one pointless parameters.

(Sub idea : make part testing 'program' with several test consecutively for the same part)

- Make the contract HELP new player by suggesting them rational use of their parts, ex : testing a high ISP engine in space, or fins in atmosphere.

- Have the contract suggest you experiment you haven't done yet. The goal is that even if you wasted funds by doing only one experiments each time, you would still stay just afloat.

- Rebalance entirely the Administration Facility, so (1) it's strategy are worth it (2) it work in synergy with the contract system.

At some point SQUAD might want to look into Periodic Budget. I see it work well with Contract for the following reason :

- It's so failsafe the contract can be made punitive in return.

- If based on reputation it can give it a whole new importance.

- It could allow make time matter.

[KSK]

Yep - it makes about as much sense as getting a contract for a Mun landing after completing your first kerballed sub-orbital flight.

Oh, wait a minute....

It's a stretch goal, an overarching mission that you've been asked to complete - call it what you will. You've shown you can get to Duna, now somebody is challenging you to do more. In my opinion that's the best type of contract as it gives you a long term goal that you can build your space program around.

I don't know how long you've got to complete the contract but I'd be surprised if you *had* to launch your tourist on the very next Duna transfer window. Given how generous the time limits for contracts normally are, I'm guessing you've got plenty of time to develop all the technology you need, send scouting missions to Duna, probably even send some infrastructure to Duna if you like. A lot of that will be funded by other contracts of course - the money you get for getting your tourist there won't nearly cover the total costs of your Duna program. But that's OK too - it gives some context to those lesser contracts as they all feed in to your big program.

Just my opinion of course but I don't see why a contract has to be tailored to the next incremental step. And if it looks like too much of a stretch or it's taking a player's space program in a direction they don't want to go - why they can always decline the contract.

Oh, and tourists. Well kerbals are just crazy for space. Ever since the first orbital missions, well-heeled thrillseekers have been looking for rides into space. It won't stop with Duna either - I fully expect that some lunatic tourist will want a ride to Eeloo one day.

[Kegereneku]

The criticism have nothing to do with historical reenactment, although it is an important facet of technological progression.

It still took around 50 more flights before getting from Mercury to the 11th Apollo moon-landing mission, and none were tourist.

And remember that because we don't know better than starting manned we are shortening around 50 flight to 10 flights.

No one will say you have to impose arbitrary number of flight nor forbid player from landing on the moon as soon as they can.

But the current contract make it look like a RPG game were you are asked to (definitely) defeat the first boss during the training phase.

Whereas in a well-designed, non-rushed progression you would fight (inconspicuous) custom-made mook to learning the fundamental, then have a dramatic showdown with the boss.

Analogy aside,

There is nothing wrong with tricking rich tourist to fund the technology to make a long Duna mission possible. But there is nothing logical in being asked to actually put tourist on the surface, minute after you first did it, even with the best reputation in the world.

Topping on this is a balance problem. Should tourist even be able to make those missions economic before technology improve ?

Shouldn't reputation play at much more important roles to make tourism play this card ?

Right now the current contract balance make failure pretty much inconsequential, and contract have to pay extremely well to compensate for their complete lack of coherence. If someone say it help new player, I say "so would infinite money" but it wouldn't make Career-mode any more interesting.

All in all, we are only asking for more rationality in the way the contract are generated. Not historical-reenactment or preventing you from getting paid for something you wanted to do anyway, but something that make rocket-science look something incredible AND logical (looking at part testing here).

The Kerbals may be space-nuts, have little self-preservation and be very very forgetful about security, but in my mind they aren't stupid.

[KSK]

Interesting points.

Whereas in a well-designed, non-rushed progression you would fight (inconspicuous) custom-made mook to learning the fundamental, then have a dramatic showdown with the boss.

I'm maybe misunderstanding the analogy but that looks pretty close to what we've actually got. Satellite to Duna = fighting the mook and learning the fundamentals. Dramatic boss showdown = landing the tourist. RPG games would normally give you more of a progression between the two points but like I've said, I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that KSP just lets you get on with it without explicitly putting those intermediate steps in.

You make a very good point about reputation. If they're not already, then I think it would be sensible to tie tourist contracts into reputation. As you said, kerbals aren't that stupid.

Whether tourism should make the trip to Duna economic is also a good question. Personally, I wouldn't be worried about funding the whole mission from the one contract - I'd just treat the tourism contract as one of many revenue generators that made the mission possible.

Doing something incredible vs doing something logical. In real life and in-game, one can kill the other In real life, the need for a logical (and economic) case for space exploration is why we haven't done incredible crewed missions beyond LEO (and don't get me wrong, stuff like the ISS is incredible) and a handful of trips to the Moon. In game terms, there's no particular logic in going to Duna since you can 'finish' the game just by going to the Mun or Minmus enough times. So there's no rational reason to go to Duna other than 'because it's there'.

With regards to space tourism - I don't see any particular problem in being asked to put a tourist on Duna. Whether that request makes sense will depend on the individual player. After all - I could *ask* NASA to put me on the next flight to the ISS. The chances of them granting my request are microscopically slim to zero though.

[Joonatan1998]

Landing tourists on Duna isn't really the worst example, try replacing "Duna" with "Eve"

Launching a probe into solar orbit means the game offers rescue missions from low solar orbit...

[tater]

That problem come at every difficulty.

This. Most contracts are not well thought out.

- Filter impossible / absurd mission, "This is Kerbal" don't make a mission to test equipment/send tourist in frustratingly incoherent way more "fun".

(or a least make it the exception, like a Seat + Booster, test mission)

Agree, 100%.

- STOP using all parameter ! What fun is there at knowing you missed to test X part because of one pointless parameters.

(Sub idea : make part testing 'program' with several test consecutively for the same part)

Good idea. Most missions/contracts should in fact have multiple, dependent parts.

- Make the contract HELP new player by suggesting them rational use of their parts, ex : testing a high ISP engine in space, or fins in atmosphere.

For science! Yes, parts testing should be rational. Right now, the player (assuming they even take parts testing contracts) has to build a "contraption" to test many of them, instead of an aircraft or rocket. Putting the testing in a context (including other parts required for testing) means they can build something "real" with it. Test a Mainsail? You need to be given a tank as well. And a nosecone.

- Have the contract suggest you experiment you haven't done yet. The goal is that even if you wasted funds by doing only one experiments each time, you would still stay just afloat.

Interesting idea.

- Rebalance entirely the Administration Facility, so (1) it's strategy are worth it (2) it work in synergy with the contract system.

The "strategies" are just goofy, IMO. I'd like to see strategies not convert "currencies," but alter the kinds of missions/contracts you get.

Do what I keep suggesting, and make a difference between internal missions, and external contracts---internal would show up with "Kerbal Space Center" and the flag you chose for the career.

Say one strategy was "Commercial Launch Provider." You would then get more commercial contracts (sat launches, building bases for other entities, etc. (though you should really lose ownership once they are satisfied)). Another might be "Space Tourism," in which case you get spammed with those missions (as you do now)---you'd get others, but the focus would be towards the "strategy" If your strategy is "Kerbal Space Program," then you get science missions. Needs fleshing out, but have the strategies actually be strategies.

At some point SQUAD might want to look into Periodic Budget. I see it work well with Contract for the following reason :

- It's so failsafe the contract can be made punitive in return.

- If based on reputation it can give it a whole new importance.

- It could allow make time matter.

This, so much.

Annual funds based on rep.

Separate Missions from contracts (the former are exploration stuff, on budget, the latter are funds as you go as they are now).

Have science "missions" pay out all funds in advance (a budget), but dole them out in parts every XX days. I suggest a single Minmus month (50 days). Have a "Warp to next Minmonth" button. Blow up all your rockets and run out of funds, and you might have to use it, otherwise you likely won't.

[MacroNova]

I don't see the problem here. It absolutely makes sense that a rich tourist would be willing to shell out a bunch of money to guarantee a seat on a Duna mission within the next X years, once he sees that you can get there. He gives you a downpayment, lots of time, and a big payoff if you come through for him. If you don't want that contract, you can decline it with no penalty whatsoever.

[Kegereneku]

Interesting points.

[...]

With regards to space tourism - I don't see any particular problem in being asked to put a tourist on Duna. Whether that request makes sense will depend on the individual player. After all - I could *ask* NASA to put me on the next flight to the ISS. The chances of them granting my request are microscopically slim to zero though.

Thank you.

A few years ago you could pay to spend a few day on the ISS.

But amongst all reason it's not done often.

- Its like, very costly. (20 - 40 millions the seat, it doesn't pay the rocket)

- It require a technology that work (we are too used to reverting to VAB).

- It monopolize valuable resources. (The spaceship, the fuel, the Life-support, the mission control, YOU)

- Then it take a LOT of time to go beyond the Moon. (So many would say they shouldn't be tourist as so much as pioneer)

In the above a lot of card KSP can't play on (not that I want Life-support). Yet it would still be great for your space program to not feel like a cheap bus tour.

I don't see the problem here. It absolutely makes sense that a rich tourist would be willing to shell out a bunch of money to guarantee a seat on a Duna mission within the next X years, once he sees that you can get there. He gives you a downpayment, lots of time, and a big payoff if you come through for him. If you don't want that contract, you can decline it with no penalty whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure the first person to land on Mars will not be a rich investor, not even if Elon Musk became a astronaut at (his) SpaceX

And I seriously doubt we will ever send tourist to place we don't have PERMANENT base at or on years long mission.

Else, I invite you to read the points above.

If the solution was left to me...

- Tourist mission don't appear until you have a Permanent Station in some place (Orbit AND Surface)

- They are first replaced by mission asking you / giving you the opportunity to replace Astronaut already sent there. (we pay for each one remember)

- Tourist would NOT pay enough to funds the mission, but give a LOT of reputation (meant for Reputation based-strategy or Recovering strategy)

Hence the main use of tourist in your space program would be on destination you have already made efficient mean of transportation for, and to resupply in Reputation.

[MacroNova]

I'm pretty sure the first person to land on Mars will not be a rich investor, not even if Elon Musk became a astronaut at (his) SpaceX

And I seriously doubt we will ever send tourist to place we don't have PERMANENT base at or on years long mission.

Else, I invite you to read the points above.

It still makes sense to me that someone would offer the contract even if they don't expect to be the first Kerbal on Duna. From the tourist's perspective, it's an investment in a lofty future goal.

If the solution was left to me...

- Tourist mission don't appear until you have a Permanent Station in some place (Orbit AND Surface)

- They are first replaced by mission asking you / giving you the opportunity to replace Astronaut already sent there. (we pay for each one remember)

- Tourist would NOT pay enough to funds the mission, but give a LOT of reputation (meant for Reputation based-strategy or Recovering strategy)

Hence the main use of tourist in your space program would be on destination you have already made efficient mean of transportation for, and to resupply in Reputation.

A permanent surface station seems unnecessary, but the orbital station could be interesting, especially if it was required to dock with the station.

Not sure what you mean with the replacement bit.

I really like the idea to have tourist missions be a major source of reputation. They already offer reputation as a final payout, but having more variety in how contracts pay out and what types give which currency would be pretty cool.

[tater]

It still makes sense to me that someone would offer the contract even if they don't expect to be the first Kerbal on Duna. From the tourist's perspective, it's an investment in a lofty future goal.

Back when the first tourist paid for an ISS ride, he paid 20 million, and that apparently covered the actual launch cost entirely. NASA pays like 70 million a seat right now to use Soyuz. A simple orbital craft in KSP costs what, 10k? My big issue with tourists is that the combo of tourists and rescues is literally half the available missions at any given time.

The "Strategy" office is nonsense, and needs to be divided up between the "convert currency" stuff, and actual broad mission strategies (business plan) for your program. In the latter case, the choices might be akin to:

1. "National" space program (aka, you are NASA)

2. Commercial launch provider. (you are like SpaceX)

3. Space tourism (Virgin Galactic).

Note that you could drag sliders to attribute what % of each your program is, so a program like Blue Origin might be 50/50 of numbers 2 and 3 as a long-term goal to start. You can be #1, but have 10% 2, and 5% 3 if you like.

These sliders would control what kinds of missions/contracts you are presented with.

The contracts would then be very explicitly changed to be one of those 3 choices.

"Space program" contracts would be renamed "Missions," and would always come from your own program (have a spot at career start to name your program/company when you pick the flag). The funds would be the "budget."

Commercial programs would have things like sat launches, but the player would stop owning the craft once the contract is fulfilled. Other commercial missions might include maintaining those things they earlier launched, adding modules to stations, etc. Parts testing would fall in here as well. Later in the game, there can be commercial resource (including some science required for same) contracts as well. Internal program missions might be to build specific capabilities for launchers (build a delivery system that can place 3 satellites in LKO, etc).

Tourism stuff would all be lumped in here, but some might include contracts (internal to your program) to build facilities (stations/bases (hotels) for tourism).

[Mr. Scruffy]

A forth direction could be ´Skunkworks´ - and that´s (meaningful, please!) part testing contracts.

EDIT: Instead of ´National Space Program´, 1st direction could simply be called ´Exploration´.

[TinfoilChef]

The thing I find most annoying about contracts is that it's offering me contracts to mine x amount of ore and deliver it to Y location (or refine it into fuel / oxydizer /monoprop and deliver that) yet I have not even gotten close to unlocking the needed technology to access the parts required. I'm in tier 4 of the tech tree and the parts needed for mining & refining are in tier 8.

I get the idea that some contracts are of the "push your limits" type but still, it shouldn't ask me to do something that requires parts that i'm not even *close* to unlocking yet.

[KSK]

*snip* In the above a lot of card KSP can't play on (not that I want Life-support). Yet it would still be great for your space program to not feel like a cheap bus tour.

I take your point but I don't see the tourism contracts as a cheap bus tour so much as having a space program for all kerbalkind (well more of it at any rate) than the lucky few picked to be kerbonauts.

If the solution was left to me...

- Tourist mission don't appear until you have a Permanent Station in some place (Orbit AND Surface)

- They are first replaced by mission asking you / giving you the opportunity to replace Astronaut already sent there. (we pay for each one remember)

- Tourist would NOT pay enough to funds the mission, but give a LOT of reputation (meant for Reputation based-strategy or Recovering strategy)

Hence the main use of tourist in your space program would be on destination you have already made efficient mean of transportation for, and to resupply in Reputation.

Speaking personally, that's the approach I'd take. Actually, it's the main reason I've never actually sent a crewed mission beyond Kerbin and it's muns. I've sent probes to Duna but I've never quite had the time to do a 'proper' Duna expedition, with a decent sized ship and infrastructure to support the kerbonauts (even if that's largely imaginary support rather than explicitly modding in life support) whilst they wait for their transfer window back to Kerbin. Sending one kerbal in a Mk1 capsule to Duna, never seemed quite right to me.

So yep - I see where you're coming from (and it's a direction that I like) but I'd also be wary of making the game quite that prescriptive. How about only having the tourist missions appearing only once you've completed the relevant 'plant a flag here' contract? Infrastructure not required but the tourists only get to go to a place once it's been proved that kerbonauts can get there.

[tater]

A forth direction could be ´Skunkworks´ - and that´s (meaningful, please!) part testing contracts.

EDIT: Instead of ´National Space Program´, 1st direction could simply be called ´Exploration´.

Yeah, that works. I was looking for an analogy to NASA. Space Exploration Program or something.

[MacroNova]

My big issue with tourists is that the combo of tourists and rescues is literally half the available missions at any given time.

True, it can get excessive. When that happens I typically let those expire while I do other things. I haven't really had to spam the decline button to scum for contracts I want to do. But I think a better balance of contracts would encourage the player to accept more of them and use the decline button less, which feels more "pure" in terms of gameplay.

The "Strategy" office is nonsense, and needs to be divided up between the "convert currency" stuff, and actual broad mission strategies (business plan) for your program. In the latter case, the choices might be akin to:

1. "National" space program (aka, you are NASA)

2. Commercial launch provider. (you are like SpaceX)

3. Space tourism (Virgin Galactic).

Note that you could drag sliders to attribute what % of each your program is, so a program like Blue Origin might be 50/50 of numbers 2 and 3 as a long-term goal to start. You can be #1, but have 10% 2, and 5% 3 if you like.

These sliders would control what kinds of missions/contracts you are presented with.

Love it! The Admin building is certainly lackluster right now, and while the current strategies don't need to go away completely, an addition like this would be pretty cool.

[tater]

So yep - I see where you're coming from (and it's a direction that I like) but I'd also be wary of making the game quite that prescriptive. How about only having the tourist missions appearing only once you've completed the relevant 'plant a flag here' contract? Infrastructure not required but the tourists only get to go to a place once it's been proved that kerbonauts can get there.

Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are doing suborbitals as tourism (at some point, anyway).

I think that far-flung places make little sense until the player establishes infrastructure there. Perhaps such missions are predicated on the player fulfilling a contract to place a certain type of station/base someplace.

Mission: build a station-hotel around Kerbin that can house 8 kerbals, power, communications, a docking port, and a viewing cupola.

That unlocks orbital tourism. Ideally there would be a requirement that the station needs to be actually manned. (must have a pilot, an maybe an engineer, tourists would not go up alone).

[Kegereneku]

TinfoilChef, I think your issue is more closely related to the Tech-Tree (horrible) state than the contract. Though both should ideally work together.

I'll not go in length about it here, but because of it contract can't rely on you to even consider privileging a technology to fit the contract. You either have the part already or you are grinding any contract/science you can to get a bundle that look correct.

[KSK]

Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are doing suborbitals as tourism (at some point, anyway).

I think that far-flung places make little sense until the player establishes infrastructure there. Perhaps such missions are predicated on the player fulfilling a contract to place a certain type of station/base someplace.

Mission: build a station-hotel around Kerbin that can house 8 kerbals, power, communications, a docking port, and a viewing cupola.

That unlocks orbital tourism. Ideally there would be a requirement that the station needs to be actually manned. (must have a pilot, an maybe an engineer, tourists would not go up alone).

Seems a bit much for Kerbin orbit tourism. I can imagine Blue Origin eventually offering tourists relatively short trips of a few hours in space and then home. No need to send those tourists to the nearest Bigelow habitat. Likewise, Apollo 8 style trips around the Moon. They might want to provide slightly more sophisticated sanitation facilities than Apollo had but I can imagine people being willing to spend a week in a capsule to see the Moon up close.

[tater]

Seems a bit much for Kerbin orbit tourism. I can imagine Blue Origin eventually offering tourists relatively short trips of a few hours in space and then home. No need to send those tourists to the nearest Bigelow habitat. Likewise, Apollo 8 style trips around the Moon. They might want to provide slightly more sophisticated sanitation facilities than Apollo had but I can imagine people being willing to spend a week in a capsule to see the Moon up close.

I mean a sort of progression of such contracts...

Right now, about 25% of all contracts are tourists/VIPs. Another 25% is rescues. A decent % are for places I have yet to land kerbals (been doing probes).

It seems to unlock tourism for anyplace you have been to---but it counts probes.

Instead, I would unlock tourism (and rescues) for one less place than you have been to, perhaps.

Player progression:

Suborbital: no tourism or rescues.

Orbital: Suborbital tourism, no rescues.

Body Orbital manned (Body = Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc): no tourism or rescues to Body, but orbital tourism and rescues for Kerbin.

Body Landed manned (Body = Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc): Body orbital tourism or rescues in addition to Kerbin. Body landed rescues as well.

Having done that (say first Mun landing), we have tourism for suborbital->orbital->munar orbital, and we have rescues for Kerbin and Mun orbit, and the munar surface.

[KSK]

I mean a sort of progression of such contracts...

Right now, about 25% of all contracts are tourists/VIPs. Another 25% is rescues. A decent % are for places I have yet to land kerbals (been doing probes).

It seems to unlock tourism for anyplace you have been to---but it counts probes.

Instead, I would unlock tourism (and rescues) for one less place than you have been to, perhaps.

Player progression:

Suborbital: no tourism or rescues.

Orbital: Suborbital tourism, no rescues.

Body Orbital manned (Body = Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc): no tourism or rescues to Body, but orbital tourism and rescues for Kerbin.

Body Landed manned (Body = Mun/Minmus/Duna/etc): Body orbital tourism or rescues in addition to Kerbin. Body landed rescues as well.

Having done that (say first Mun landing), we have tourism for suborbital->orbital->munar orbital, and we have rescues for Kerbin and Mun orbit, and the munar surface.

Ahh - gotcha. Yes that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

[Kegereneku]

So yep - I see where you're coming from (and it's a direction that I like) but I'd also be wary of making the game quite that prescriptive. How about only having the tourist missions appearing only once you've completed the relevant 'plant a flag here' contract? Infrastructure not required but the tourists only get to go to a place once it's been proved that kerbonauts can get there.

You are worried the game won't recognize a base ?

Me I'm more worried the game would consider any spacecraft that land as a self-sufficient base.

However you got me to realize I considered the thing in a mission-centric way, aka "the game recognize there is a base because they asked you to put one". Which is not ideal since player will do whatever they want as long as they can.

The flag would make a good milestone... but you still have the same absurdity of tourist asking -like seriously- to go on a planet minutes after the WORLD FIRST ! ... cheap tour bus it is.

Mankind put a flag on the Moon but the only place we can even space tourist seat is LEO.

We can try to consider the problem from another angle :

The tourist only selling point should be the prestige, you should be encouraged to squeeze them in the cheapest spacecraft possible in the hope of breaking even.

But before that, the contract generator have to recognize what became simple for you.

(right now I'm considering basing this on deltaV map : Tourist would only appear for stuff that require say 1/10th of the theoretical dV of your last feat)

The "Strategy" office is nonsense, and needs to be divided up between the "convert currency" stuff, and actual broad mission strategies (business plan) for your program. In the latter case, the choices might be akin to:

** snip **

"Space program" contracts would be renamed "Missions," and would always come from your own program (have a spot at career start to name your program/company when you pick the flag). The funds would be the "budget."

Commercial programs would have things like sat launches, but the player would stop owning the craft once the contract is fulfilled. Other commercial missions might include maintaining those things they earlier launched, adding modules to stations, etc. Parts testing would fall in here as well. Later in the game, there can be commercial resource (including some science required for same) contracts as well. Internal program missions might be to build specific capabilities for launchers (build a delivery system that can place 3 satellites in LKO, etc).

Tourism stuff would all be lumped in here, but some might include contracts (internal to your program) to build facilities (stations/bases (hotels) for tourism).

(Answering late I know)

I can't say I support your.... Total Conversion.

But that's mostly because if I really hoped for such thing I would do so in a completely different manner.

(In all due respect, National/Commercial/Tourism are pointless distinction, I know what inspire you, but there is no point in doing so. National agency do commercial service and tourism just as well a commercial company can do "national stuff")

If you are still interested by what (my) TC would be in short :

- (short)Periodic Budget appear, reputation set the max you can get, it feed on reputation.

- All reward are made so looooow you need 50% budget 50% contract/mission to not stagnate. Contract become punitive.

- The Administration facility stay globally the same. The strategy given would be good if they were properly balanced and working with the rest.

- In the contract(AND mission) screen however "company-flag" are replaced by Icon indicating the type of non-discriminate mission. (Any Survey for example would have the same "flag/icon" )

That's all.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Kegereneku

[tater]

I wasn't very clear before. I'm not sure if what I posted above is even possible, though. Right now, perhaps it would be possible to lock the tourism contracts such that you need to complete some specific contract to start them, though.

So in that case you'd need to explicitly start tourism as a thing...

Maybe for suborbital you get a contract to build a 2-kerbal rocket with parts X and Y (like a station contract), and test it on a suborbital flight. The contract can explicitly say that this is proof of concept for space tourism, and might open the doors to tourists… then the same with orbital stations, whatever. Just some way to stop the contract office from being spammed with tourists.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't say I support your.... Total Conversion.

But that's mostly because if I really hoped for such thing I would do so in a completely different manner.

(In all due respect, National/Commercial/Tourism are pointless distinction, I know what inspire you, but there is no point in doing so. National agency do commercial service and tourism just as well a commercial company can do "national stuff")

In you are still interested by what (my) TC would be in short :

- (short)Periodic Budget appear, reputation set the max you can get, resupplying it feed on reputation.

- All reward are made so looooow you need 50% budget 50% contract/mission to not stagnate. Contract become punitive.

- The Administration facility stay globally the same. The strategy given would be good if they were properly balanced and working with the rest.

- In the contract(AND mission) screen however "company-flag" are replaced by boring flag indicating the type of non-discriminate mission. (Any Survey for example would have the same "flag/icon" )

That's all.

I like your ideas, but remember I said that they would be strategies on a slider. There is very much a distinction between those types of launches. All my idea does is let the player control what % of contracts they will see are from each type. "National" is budget based (science), Commercial is launch a satellite, etc, for funds. Tourism is launch people for funds. I agree with Rep driving budget, BTW. It's actually very similar to what you propose.

All they do is control what type of contracts/missions you are offered.

You can set your program to be 50% "National" and that would drive a budget based system, wit the other 50% commercial. Like "strategies" you could alter them in mid-game. So perhaps later in the game you might choose to start taking tourists to your station, for example (up your "space tourism" slider from 0% to 5%, say).

[Kegereneku]

I am saying WHAT you are hauling to space for WHOM is meaningless in our context.

What matter are the "resources" (reputation/funds/science) and how it interface with the means (Expandable versus Reusable).

The idea of influencing what contract you want it to give you, rather than how they play out for you, is to me a bad idea.

Hence I consider we are in fact better using the Administration Facility EXACTLY as it was formulated, with the commitment slider (a very good idea), but with its value rebalanced (along the contracts & hopefully the Tech-tree) so you are actually interested in investing in a strategy, building your spaceship along your philosophy and accepting only the (non-player driven) contract that interest you.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Kegereneku