Is this cheating?

[KatzOhki]

@Fel: NASA aren't the only players in the game. Private companies launch satellites into orbit for other private companies. Those satellites are private property. See Globalstar, Intelsat (operators of the Galaxy series of satellites), DirecTV and Dish, GeoEye and etc. Not sure if you were aware of them, it seemed like your argument was suggesting that all satellites are government owned. As it applies to Kerbal Space Program, there's no reason to suspect that the Kerbal laws are written anything like ours in the US or even anywhere on Earth.

[TimePeriod]

So, what you're saying is "I don't care or understand the law, thus am fighting to defend a major fault"

It doesn't matter how many words you throw at me, your argument isn't sound; distribution costs are minor and you CAN bring someone to court if they become major (it is "akin to public domain").

Distribution costs makes up 50% of my own electrical bill, so you must be seriously misinformed. I can't bring my power supplier to court, for signing a contract which is perfectly legal.

Exactly the same thing with NASA or any other company. If you wish to get a specific photo taken, using their gear, then you will have to pay something for it. Nothing is free in this world.

[KrazyKrl]

I think the contract to return science should require some cost.

"Transmit data back to Kerbin that contains science points."

- OR -

"Launch a new craft that collects any experiment from planetoid X"

Also, the contract should reward a bonus on top of the science data sent back to Kerbin. (For zero science new crafts, it should reward half the bonus or less from the experiment itself.)

Of course you cannot get these contracts if you have already recovered all the science from a planetoid.

Just being able to have random probes around, and taking a 0 science reading; for 50k funds, seems wrong.

[simsatellite]

I actually like the ability to decline contracts that I don't like and not have to time-warp for new ones to pop up. Unrealistic? Yes, but takes the grind out of waiting for contracts to expire, so it makes the game more enjoyable imo. I think too much realism for the contract system would make me too risk-averse, which doesn't feel like the Kerbal way.

I agree with AbacusWizard though, if it was intended that people have the freedom to pick and choose, there should be a reject-all button or some kind of filter.

For the satellite data contract, I don't want it to only spawn where I have not done science, 'cos that means if I do all the easy science first, the contracts will only spawn for locations that I have difficulty reaching, which means it's one less type of contract that less experienced players like me can do to finance all my costly failed test launches (e.g. I get a ton of rescue missions, and I suck at those, I only completed one so far where I deorbited the kerbonaut using his jetpack and land in the ocean and miraculously survived.) To make it less exploitable, maybe have the agency borrow your satellite for x hours, making it unusable for other contracts for that duration. This way, you can't just spam those missions (unless you have a ridiculous number of satellites in orbit, in which case I think it's okay since you bothered to make that investment.)

[problemecium]

I figure the "data from X" contracts are put there to motivate us to set up and use stations and bases (rather than just send stuff once and be done).

[Fel]

@Fel: NASA aren't the only players in the game. Private companies launch satellites into orbit for other private companies. Those satellites are private property. See Globalstar, Intelsat (operators of the Galaxy series of satellites), DirecTV and Dish, GeoEye and etc. Not sure if you were aware of them, it seemed like your argument was suggesting that all satellites are government owned. As it applies to Kerbal Space Program, there's no reason to suspect that the Kerbal laws are written anything like ours in the US or even anywhere on Earth.

No, I covered those; but I considered KSP to be akin to NASA. Just because NASA launched those, they cannot just take the data from those sats and sell it. I fully agree that the commercial ventures are most likely to be doing "near earth experiments" for the sole intent of selling to someone else, but NASA isn't going to profit from those commercial ventures.

This was just a "Learn about copyright law before you claim x is reality" argument... at this point, it isn't even arguing it's just spitting at each other like apes.

[Mr. Scruffy]

I can honestly say, that i never ever rejected a single contract. It´s my career-houserule (which i dont even have to force myself to adhere to - it just comes natural for me, not to press that button - i keep fearing it would cost me REP) #1.

[SelectHalfling0]

Boring, not cheating.

[Sattorin]

No... but hard mode should have some penalty for declining contracts.

[John FX]

I like the idea of having to earn some science to get the payout. You could have a probe in high orbit, do science and get a payout but you would have to move it to a low orbit to get more or launch another probe with a different experiment.

As for cheating, I personally only think that term applies when playing with others.

[Joonatan1998]

sorry, posted in a wrong thread.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Joonatan1998