Missions or Milestones? Let’s Expand On The 1.0 Contract System

[Streetwind]

Attention everyone: this is a frickin' huge wall of text. And there's no TL;DR. But please bear with me - you might like what you see!

Introduction.

I'm quite pleased how in KSP 1.0, you no longer need to accept and complete every single altitude record contract individually. That makes the start so much smoother! No longer do you have to decide between spending the time to do this or missing out on the cash and rep that is supposed to help you get off the ground.

That said, I noticed that the UI of the mission control building is kind of struggling to support this feature. The altitude records are now all automatically listed under "accepted" contracts, and maybe you noticed this on the KSPTV stream as well as your own gameplay: nobody ever looks at the accepted contracts tab at game start. Especially when the UI explicitly tells you that you do not have any contracts accepted. So a player starting a new career save doesn't even realize these records and other auto-completing contracts exist.

Continuing the career gameplay, I couldn’t help but notice a strange dichotomy in the way contracts are handled. Some contracts are clearly procedurally generated, repeatable content. Other contracts are clearly handcrafted one-off affairs. But the game doesn’t seem to be sure whether or not it should acknowledge that difference. Some of the one-time contracts are automatically accepted, like the altitude records; others are not, like escaping the atmosphere. Admittedly, making “escape the atmosphere†a contract that the player manually accepts is a means of player guidance; but at the same time, isn’t that a tacit admission that (as mentioned before) nobody ever looks at the “accepted†tab? Also, doesn’t that generate the same issue as before, where you can accidentally complete the prerequisites of a major milestone contract but you don’t get credit because you didn’t accept it?

Some players would call the contract system inherently flawed for this. But I don’t. I’d instead like to call the mission control UI inherently flawed. It was made for a contract system much smaller in scope and variety than what is currently implemented, and it shows. I believe there is a lot that can be gained from improving the UI - and while at it, taking the chance to make a fundamental change in the way contracts are presented to the player.

The Premise.

I suggest to take what the autocompletable record contracts started to its logical conclusion, and divide contract types strictly between procedurally generated, repeatable content and handcrafted one-off content. The former, they can keep the name “Contractsâ€Â. Or you can call them “Missions†for the alliteration, but it’s honestly not important. The latter, let’s call them “Milestonesâ€Â.

The new mission control UI would have two principal sections - either side by side, or in tabs, or whichever display method ends up looking great and making sense (EDIT: maybe multiple views, like in the R&D building). One section dedicated entirely to Milestones, one section dedicated entirely to regular commercial Contracts.

Milestones.

...would be the player guidance method. They would comprise all of the things that generate rewards for doing them once, for the first time: reaching an altitude record. Escaping the atmosphere. Achieving orbit. Performing a Mun flyby. Exploring the Mun. And so on - every single of these contracts currently in the game would be grouped under Milestones.

All milestones would be visible right from the start, but those that make sense for the player to focus on would be displayed at the top of the list, under a “within our reach†heading. This does not need any new logic to handle, because it can simply use the same logic that already determines whether or not a new contract should be generated for the player.

The only exception is that all of them would be always visible, and you'd no longer be praying to the random number generator that the game actually spits out a “visit Duna†contract at the same time it produces a “visit Ike†contract. These not showing up together is way too common, and feels awful when it happens because you know that if you actually go visit Ike, the Duna contract will never show up and you missed it. Under this proposed system, this issue just magically disappears without any need for the devs to further tweak the system. All by simply displaying it in a different way to the player.

All milestones and their sub-objectives would autocomplete upon achieving them, and there would be no deadlines on them (this is already true now), nor would they need to be accepted or require a free contract slot. But the player would have the option to “track†them in the mission control UI, which adds them to your toolbar contract widget the same way an accepted contract shows. The player could also un-track the objective again if he no longer wants to see it. Kind of it like a quest tracker in an MMO.

The iterative starter milestones would be unified under one big header. For example, there would no longer be an individual contract for each altitude record. Rather there will be just one single “Altitude Records†milestone, and one single “Speed Records†milestone, and so on and so forth. Each individual record would be a single sub-objective under that overarching milestone. This keeps the milestone list shorter and more easily browsed.

Contracts (or Missions, if you like).

...would be just what they are now, the player’s main source of income. Every procedurally generated, repeatable contract would be found here. The list would start empty and becomes populated when the “Escape the Atmosphere†milestone is completed, just like it already works right now.

Just like now, contracts would need to be accepted in order to complete, and they would have a deadline by which they must be completed. In fact, there are no changes necessary to how any of them work, except that they are displayed apart from the milestones, in their own UI section.

Keeping the fact in mind that contracts are completely focused on the commercial side, with milestones moved out of the way, the contract UI can offer the player new options that wouldn’t have made sense before. For instance, the game currently has a small issue where certain contract types simply stop appearing during gameplay as other, more advanced contract types take over. I’ve had situations where I was asked to build four different ground bases, but not a single satellite contract had shown itself over multiple ingame years. Why does it have to be that way? Why not have a contract UI that offers all (unlocked) types of contracts at all times, in parallel, and lets the player choose? Maybe dedicate a part of the UI to each contract individually. Like, have a dropdown menu where you could say “show me satellite launch contractsâ€Â, and it would offer you three of those. And then you could switch to viewing tourist contracts, and it would show you three of those. Dropdown menus are maybe not the best way to do this, but you hopefully try to get the point I’m trying to make: let the player choose from and enjoy the full spectrum of all available mission types for the entirety of the game.

Also, this would make the game present a greater number of individual contracts at once to choose from. This way, the final tier mission control building and its unlimited contract accepting allowance actually makes sense to have. Right now, tier 2 already gives you 7 contracts, and the game only ever spawns like 10 at once. Including milestone contracts, by the way, which is another reason why it’s so beneficial to split those off into their own category - else they just take up room where commercial contracts could spawn instead. Contract allowances could be further tuned for this new system, especially when the tier 0 space center eventually makes its appearance. With milestones no longer counting against the limit, you could do something like: 1, 3, 7, unlimited instead of the current 2, 7, unlimited.

Oh, and by the way? Please remove all science payout from repeatable contracts. They’re okay on milestones, to a small degree, but really… no science from launching the fifteenth tourist. Please.

To sum up the advantages of this system:

• More consistent handling of contract types
  
• Better new player experience and guidance at the same time as
  
• More player choice, more varied ways to progress lead to less perception of “grindâ€Â
  
• Player no longer misses important milestones due to bad luck
  
• Milestones and commercial contracts work better in parallel
  
• Automatic elimination of multiple inconveniences in the current system
  
• More believable representation of a global commercial space market
  
• More meat on the bones of the important-sounding “mission control†building
  

Feedback.

Oh, you're still reading after all this? Terrific. I'd like to hear what you think of my idea. Would it improve the game in your opinion, or did I make a major mistake in the way I laid it out? And if you happen to like it, it would be great if you could show your support and bring it to the attention of others.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Streetwind

[Laie]

So, in a nutshell, you propose to have two flavors of contract:

• the procedural ones like placing satellits or planting a flag
  
• the achievements like Explor Duna or Orbit Kerbin
  

You want all achievements to be always available, and propose a UI overhaul to make this possible without clutter. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Tw1]

It does sound like a good idea to me too. It's a step towards more freedom in career mode.

Squad, you guys need to come take a look at this.

Would be milestones still have a monetary reward?

It could be argued that the current system does show how space programs IRL can't just do whatever they like, but need to wait until there's interest, but that's no fun IRL either. An alternate idea to represent this with the system you propose would be to need you 'propose' (select) attempting one of the planetary milestones before you go, and the amount you're offered to do it with varies. Every milestone would still be available, until it has been ticked off.

It's more authentic, it doesn't really make sense someone just giving you money after you've landed on something, but IDK, this could start getting limiting again.

I do agree milestones and contracts ought to be separate.

The contract selection system is much better for 'commercial' type activities, like launching satellites, tourism, requested tests/data, etc. Even the requests for base and station construction sort of make sense, despite getting in the way of you making your own plans. Same with rescue contracts, even if that kerbals already have a lot of established space programs, robbing you of that pioneering feel, IMHO.

The ability to sort, and see the variety would be awesome.

I still would like time based budget mode, and motivators to go to planets apart from 'because i was payed too' post milestone completion, and tech tree, but that's something for another thread.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Tw1

[Kelderek]

Would be milestones still have a monetary reward?

I think it would be very necessary to have funds (and maybe reputation) granted for completing milestone achievements. The main difference compared to contracts is that they probably would only provide funds after the fact and not have any advanced payments up front. I don't think science should be involved as a reward unless the milestone is a very "sciency" type of thing.

You can think of the funds earned from milestones as a bonus check for your space program. It's a lot like how a sports coach may have a clause in their employment contract that gives a bonus if they make the playoffs and an even bigger bonus if they with the championship. In this case your government wants you to have a successful space program so they offer incentives to achieve certain goals.

You would have to tweak and balance all the numbers, but keep in mind that milestones only happen once and a contract can be repeated if you want to grind out some funds.

[Streetwind]

So, in a nutshell, you propose to have two flavors of contract:

• the procedural ones like placing satellits or planting a flag
  
• the achievements like Explor Duna or Orbit Kerbin
  

You want all achievements to be always available, and propose a UI overhaul to make this possible without clutter.

Sort of, yes. Though "achievement" implies a vanity plaque for your e-gallery. The milestone contracts would still do what they do right now, and offer serious rewards for completing them. They're as much a gameplay progression mechanic as the repeatable contracts are, and not merely a "been there, done that" badge of honor.

I specifically chose the word "milestone" to make that distinction It quite literally describes itself as an essential step along the way.

Would be milestones still have a monetary reward?

I think they should. Although that's only tangentially related to the suggestion here, because the reward balance between milestones and contracts can be freely adjusted without actually impacting any other part of the proposed model.

Still, exploring a new planet is awesome and it should reward the player accordingly. Additionally, it's a one-time deal, so it cannot be abused. It also makes sure there's less of a need to "grind" ever-repeating procedural contracts. From a gameplay standpoint, there's practically only points in favor, none against.

[Hydrazine_Soup]

What about just reputation for milestones and both money and reputation for contracts? That'd make a lot of sense, that's pretty much how it works IRL

[Hobbes Novakoff]

How about with milestones you get a relatively large amount of money (like a grant). If you don't complete the milestone in a certain time, the amount you get from subsequent milestones decreases (or your reputation could take a hit and future milestone monies are based off rep.) If you successfully complete it, you get a boost to reputation, and subsequent milestones give you more starting money.

[Sky_walker]

I thought we already got time-sensitive contracts and in the end what we got were timelines that never caused any problems unless you intentionally skipped them.

[Streetwind]

Yeah, honestly the whole "reward changing" thing is sorta off topic here... rewards as they are right now work well for career mode. Maybe a little bit too much free science still, but no dealbreakers in there.

I'd rather hear better ideas than an ol' drop-down menu for how to present all those different contract types to the player

[Tw1]

How about with milestones you get a relatively large amount of money (like a grant). If you don't complete the milestone in a certain time, the amount you get from subsequent milestones decreases (or your reputation could take a hit and future milestone monies are based off rep.) If you successfully complete it, you get a boost to reputation, and subsequent milestones give you more starting money.

Not sure it's a good idea for these ones to be time sensitive. One of the good things about this idea is it brings back the player's ability to chose whatever they want to do first. Once you've got the funds, you could go straight to Dres, rather than Duna, etc. Adding a time expectation limits this.

What about just reputation for milestones and both money and reputation for contracts? That'd make a lot of sense, that's pretty much how it works IRL

This does make sense. I do think there should be some money from them though, simply because these missions are costly, after all.

I'd rather hear better ideas than an ol' drop-down menu for how to present all those different contract types to the player

Tabs?

Drop down menu doesn't sound too bad.

The different types of contract could be shown in more tabs below the "available, active, archive' buttons, but that would get cluttered. Plus, drop down menus can be expanded (and have things removed) without mucking up the whole thing.

I think milestones ought to be in a separate mission control tab, like the tech tree and science archive are in R&D.

[OddFunction]

As a brand new player with 34 hours on record and dozens of missions completed I'd have to say I agree 100% with everything the OP is saying. That system sounds better by far.

[Guest]

This is a great idea that I'd love to see implemented.

[Laie]

Yeah, honestly the whole "reward changing" thing is sorta off topic here... rewards as they are right now work well for career mode.

This is not so much about the rewards... one very serious problem we still have is that

1. "Explore $Body" contracts are three-star contracts
   
2. "Explore Body" contracts can't be rejected and don't expire
   
3. one can only have so many three-star contracts
   

As a result the exploration contracts displace all other three-star contracts. Not great. Furthermore, the explorations come up in a fixed order. If you want to go to Minmus first, or have your own ideas for which Joolian moon to visit next, you're out of luck.

One shouldn't void any milestone just because the contract didn't show up in time.

[Streetwind]

Laie, that problem becomes a complete non-issue if my suggestion is implemented, because: 1.) since all milestones autocomplete and do not require accepting, they will no longer compete for contract slots; and 2.) since all milestones are available right from the start, the order in which you complete them is irrelevant. The game would merely suggest select milestones as "within reach" in order to provide guidance to new players. A veteran will not be required to follow that order.

It's all accounted for in the suggestion already

- - - Updated - - -

Tabs?

Drop down menu doesn't sound too bad.

The different types of contract could be shown in more tabs below the "available, active, archive' buttons, but that would get cluttered. Plus, drop down menus can be expanded (and have things removed) without mucking up the whole thing.

I think milestones ought to be in a separate mission control tab, like the tech tree and science archive are in R&D.

Oooh, multiple views like in the R&D building... that's one way I hadn't considered. It's an UI element that's already implemented in the game and functional, so it can be easily used for this purpose. Good thinking!

Then inside each view there's room for a full-size UI with sub-tabs and everything.

EDIT: in fact, the science archives style looks like a great concept for the commercial contracts section. You have a vertical list on the left with all individual contract types (tourists, orbital rescue, base building, science and studies etc...), maybe even each with a logo of their own. At the top right there would be a short list with room for 3-5 contracts. The majority of the right side, and also the majority of the UI as a whole, would be the contract description window.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Streetwind

[mattinoz]

I like this.

As an added benefit maybe procedural contracts could then be generated based on Milestones not just bodies visited.

Allowing for more sensible random contracts.

While adding to the contract systems it would be great to have contracts that require you to do something over a longer period than 10seconds.

Although as i understand it contracts seem to only be able to assess completion on the active craft which could be reason for 10sec stability.

So thinking there could be recurring contracts that assess on rails so they can have time frames like a week or a month and repeat each month. They could be tied to completion of a lead contract so that a particular craft was associated with them.

To me would be good for satellite and station contracts have them pay a monthly maintenance fee.

For stations not just stability but other agencies could lease a station off you with contracts to deliver Tourists/Scientists to and from the station.

[Streetwind]

I like this.

As an added benefit maybe procedural contracts could then be generated based on Milestones not just bodies visited.

Allowing for more sensible random contracts.

Well, "bodies visited" becomes almost synonymous with completed milestone contracts under the proposed system, since you need to go somewhere to complete the milestone... and going somewhere always completes the associated milestone.

That said, if there's corner cases to squash, it's a good opportunity to do so. Certainly it makes sense to align the offered contracts as close as possible to the player's actual progress.

[gmiddlemass]

Great idea +1

[TothAval]

good idea, incorporated the ui suggestion within my QoL list.

[Sky_walker]

Very good idea.

[Streetwind]

So apparently Maxmaps said in last Friday's Squadcast that in order to port to Unity 5, they're going to have to re-do the entire UI from the ground up.

...Oooohh Squaaaad~~ There's an awesome opportunity to re-implement the Mission Control building UI differently here~~

[adinfinitum]

Since we're talking about changes to the mission control UI, one thing I'd like to see in addition to OP's suggestion, which I love, is the ability to sort accepted contracts by things such as expiration date, reward amount, and type.

[Kegereneku]

+1 for another correctly tuned implementation that I would have preferred to see done before 1.0.

The mission filtering definitely need to be worked on.

Rant aside, I think the following three aspect have to be balanced hand-in-hand, like a three-legged race.

- Contract

- Administration

- Tech-Tree

I have nothing to add for Contract, the mission plan proposed by OP's is quite sound or will adapt in a good fashion.

Administration don't have to change much (unless SQUAD go crazy and implement a periodic Budget), but it have to be rebalanced with the contract new value in mind.

The Tech-tree is the one who need the most change and will provoke the more variation. The cost of a mission have to reflect the cost of the parts required to accomplish it, plus a little leeway to research/upgrade.

[Streetwind]

Since we're talking about changes to the mission control UI, one thing I'd like to see in addition to OP's suggestion, which I love, is the ability to sort accepted contracts by things such as expiration date, reward amount, and type.

Good thinking, I like this idea. With only 4-5 contracts active, sorting options don't offer that much of a benefit, but once you go two digit, they start making sense.

[herbal space program]

I think OP's idea to explicitly separate the random and one-off contracts is a good one, but I'm not sure I like the idea of having all of them available all of the time. I think it might be better for one thing to have them appear only as they become unlocked in terms of tech progress, and also to allow the player only to have a limited number of them active at any one time. This could be analogous to the "programs" idea that was floated in another thread like this a couple of days ago. You could select up to two general areas to have active at any one time, like "speed and distance records" or "atmospheric flight", and then be allowed to have some limited number (depending on building upgrades) of specific contracts within each area active at once. If this were kept as a separate tab, and the procedural, i.e. "commercial" contracts had their own page and number limits, then the whole kludgy thing of having all those automatic "record" contracts at the beginning could be eliminated. I assume they just did that because they realized that with only 2 active contracts allowed at the very beginning, you have to do too much inane grinding to really get your program off the ground. With a system like that, you could have 4-6 contracts going at start and thus not need this "records" artifice at the outset.

As to the milestones contracts carrying monetary and science rewards, think they definitely should have them, either as one-time rewards or as increases is some sort of periodic agency budget, which is an idea that has also been kicking around the forums.

[Streetwind]

But in such a scenario, how do you decide what to unlock for the player when? For instance, at which tech node do you decide to unlock the Milestone for reaching Duna? If you set this very early, then the whole "unlocking by tech level" makes little sense because most players will have all of them unlocked anyway within the first hours of gameplay. On the other hand, if you set them too late, then you'll have experienced players saying "I can reach Duna long before I ever get the milestone for it! This is nonsense!" And they'd be right.

Additionally, to what tech node do you tie milestones? Why would a player be forced to research a specific tech node just to unlock a milestone? Like, if a player decides he just wants to do everything with spaceplanes, but finds that all of the milestones to reach new planets are tied to rocketry tech nodes? That player is going to be very put off. And again, rightly so.

While it sounds like it could make sense in principle, I fear that this would actually play pretty badly in practical application for anyone except a small number of people who share the exact same playstyle as the person who defined the dependencies of the milestones from tech nodes.

And then, everything breaks down completely when people start using modded tech trees.

So yeah, I see far more problems than advantages with that idea. My suggestion is aimed at enabling maximum flexibility for the largest amount of different playstyles. Player guidance is achieved via the "within our reach" suggested milestones, which in no way need to be followed but allow a new player to know what is expected of them next. Since that system would be using the same routines as those currently deciding whether a new unique contract should generate, that means the suggested milestones will already be defined by the abilities and unlocked parts of the player. I see little need to change or expand on that right now.