Are multiple satellite contracts too easy?

[Ferdoni]

Hi fellow kerbals!

So i'm doing carreer and I just want to check your opinion about the set up of a satellite contract.

It says:

Launch a new satellite

So if you are already have one in orbit, that one doesn't count, fair enough so far.

BUT! If you accept two here's what I can do:

- Accept 2 satellite contracts

- launch 1 satellite

- position it for the required orbit (contract 1 completed)

- change orbit and position it for the required orbit for contract 2 (contract 2 completed)

So It's like the company of the contract says, hey! as long as you bring it up there for 10 seconds you get tons of money..

I think this isn't real.

The better way for instance is if you position a satellite for a contract, it fixes it path or just dissapears

What do you guys think?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Ferdoni

[Rfmeijboom]

I will work the way you describe it.

You can use 1 satellite to fullfill multiple contracts, but to me it feels like cheating.

In my career games I just leave them in the requested orbit and mark it as debris, so it won't clutter my map view.

[Secuas]

I think it doesn't make any sense an example of improvement could be: The first satalite you launch would have to to stay up the required orbit, and if you change your reputation decreases a lot so that you have to launch 2 satellites anyway.

[KerbMav]

Contract specific parts popping up in the VAB for each satellite contract would help.

[DarkGravity]

Some good ideas popping up here! I like what I'm hearing. The contracts could definitely use a little polishing. So many of them ask you to build something for the company offering the contract, put it where they want it, then use it however you wish. Satellites, Stations, Bases. Pretty unreal. Right up there with the SPH and VAB being different biomes. Also completely unrealistic. But for contracts, having the item become locked (maybe for a month, maybe permanently) or disappear after completing the contract is a good idea. So is needing to put a contract-specific item in its construction. And no ship/base/rover/plane can have more than 1 contract-specific part.

[Vectura]

I always just accept that it is possible- after all, they paid me to have that sat in that orbit for 10 seconds, and 10 seconds is what they will get!

[Ferdoni]

So is needing to put a contract-specific item in its construction. And no ship/base/rover/plane can have more than 1 contract-specific part.

This could be the start then for commercial communication satellites?!

[SemiaCloud]

I never noticed that...

[georgTF]

It is cheaty, but it doesn't pay too well and frequently contracts will have oddbal orbit requirements. I like that the possibility is there and would personally only take advantage of it when strapped for cash. Aside from the R&D 3rd lvl upgrade, i haven't felt the financial sting too much so i think i'd be too bored to abuse the loophole.

[Ferdoni]

It is cheaty, but it doesn't pay too well

It does, you can cash L80.000 for a L10.000 rocket, and besides, you can of course load multiple satellites on your rocket

[Kuu Lightwing]

But for contracts, having the item become locked (maybe for a month, maybe permanently) or disappear after completing the contract is a good idea. So is needing to put a contract-specific item in its construction. And no ship/base/rover/plane can have more than 1 contract-specific part.

It's an awful idea. I often launch multiple satellites in one launch. when I reach the designated orbit I decouple one sat and proceed with the rest of the vehicle. Both your suggestions make this method impossible to use.

[Varsi]

This shouldn't really be a problem. It's not like RL space agencies launch rockets for single satellites (most of the time) either.

Good thing about KSP is that if you feel something makes game too easy you can just avoid doing it. For example you can complete pretty much unlimited number of "science from..." contracts as long as you just have something already at the required location. I just never do that since it feels kinda wrong.

Edit.

And I missed the point of OP by a mile... I guess RL space agencies won't use the SAME satellite for multiple customers.

The second point still counts tho!

[LittleBlueGaming]

I don't really like those missions anyway. In my career, I own space. Satellites only go where I say they go, and all my competitors ever manage to do is strand free recruits for me up in orbit.

Besides, I tend to think of those kinds of missions more as government grants than commercial contracts. I'm not building a space station around Minmus for Derp-o-Engines Ltd., I'm building it for my space program. The contracts are just a stimulus to incentivize the Department of Booms and Snacks to keep developing new technologies and increasing kerbalkind's presence among the stars star.

In the end, I agree with Varsi. Even in career mode, KSP is a sandbox game. Squad can't possibly make the perfect career mode for everybody, it's ultimately up to the player in a sandbox game to play the way they enjoy best. If you like those contracts, go ahead and do them.(Really it's not too unrealistic to think of kerbal companies paying you to put up a satellite for them, and then only using it for 10 seconds). If you don't like them, just skip them like I do.

[Enkiel]

I like to think that the mission for bases on X planet (or moon), are there to push you to establish one there, not just a "lets build this, and put it there, and grab money for it".

About the satellite, i kinda agree... but on another hand, i already have 7-8 satellite in orbit around kerbin and its moon, i wouldnt like to see what would happen if i couldn't do 2 mission with the same satellite....

[Ferdoni]

I like to think that the mission for bases on X planet (or moon), are there to push you to establish one there, not just a "lets build this, and put it there, and grab money for it".

Well, with bases it's kinda different, you don't easily put a base on one body and then move it to another.

[gogozerg]

I'm only picking up contracts I like, that fit my idea of what space program I want and how I'm having fun.

As long as the rewards are high enough to fund my rockets, it's okay.

I'll never charge twice for the same satellite, I would be ashamed!

Finding exploits is easy, but unsatisfactory.

[RocketBlam]

I never thought of doing that, but to me, launching two satellites on one rocket is nearly as good, and only costs a bit more.

[georgTF]

70.000 profit isn't a lot. In fact it's almost worthless if KSP playtime is limited. It does depend what you need money for. As mentioned, i need to raise >3.5 million and 70k is a mere trifle in that case.

Stacking multiple contracts on one craft was the main issue, and wheter or not that's cheating. I think it does feel a bit cheaty but on the rare occasion you use it, it's probably nice that the option exists. You are simply not likely to need to abuse the bug often enough, the oportunity is not likely to show up often enough nor is it profitable enough to try to earn a bunch of money that way. If you're going to cherry pick contracts to get 2-3 sats in neat, similar orbits, you could earn roughly 220k but the job would possibly take longer then had you launched 3 separate rockets to earn roughly 200k.

[edit]

If you take the average worth of a sat contract to be 80k

Average cost of a sat that can be placed anywhere in the Kerbin system, including the pesky retrograde inclined or polar orbits is 10K

This gives you profit of 70k

If you stack two contracts the profit is 80+80-10=150k but that's only if the orbits are somewhat similar, otherwise you may run out of fuel. Also, if one of the sats needs to reach Minmus while the other is aimed at a retrograde LKO, you may be on margin with fuel and cetrainly wont be able to use the same orbital injection vehicle for both.

All that rabbiting is just to show that if you used 2 rockets the final outcome would be 80+80-10-10=140k. So did you just do a needlesly complex mission for 10k?

Even with 3 sats, the difference only comes to 20k (230k with "cheating" vs 210k earned by playing it straight.)

The difference is miserable which is interesting because it feels like a cheat despite not paying that well. I fully expected to lose control of the craft once the contract was completed. Sats and bases for other agencies are completely ridiculous if they are still mine to control, remove or whatever. I shouldn't be expected to pay maintenance, and would like an option to delete clutter, but the way it's been implemented is absurd.

The upshot is, that you can fully control what happens next, rather than the game forcing you. If you want to maintain foreign agency junk, you can do that. If you want to remove it manually, that's an option. Just delete it? Why not. Move the sat to another position and claim another contract? Up to you entirely. You do have the option...

Edited June 3, 2015 by georgTF
lolmaths

[Guest]

Of all the things to complain about "satellite contracts are too easy", of course they're easy, they're not supposed to be hard in the first place.

EDIT: If you don't want to control a satellite, station, or base after deploying it, just hit "Terminate Flight" in the space center.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Guest

[georgTF]

Of all the things to complain about "satellite contracts are too easy", of course they're easy, they're not supposed to be hard in the first place.

To be fair the complaint was that it's too easy to stack multiple contracts, launch a single sat, and complete all contracts with it.

Then again, it's just as easy to access the cheat menu and enable infinite fuel.

And again it's just as easy not to do any of the above. Just depends on what the player wants to do.

[Guest]

Just depends on what the player wants to do.

Exactly. If you don't want to do it, don't. But don't make a big deal about it being possible either.