Awful contracts and career observations

[tater]

I've been playing career since 1.0, beating it up. Moderate+ difficulty setting (gotta have quick saves, KSP always crashes on me, it's just a matter of when now (Mac OS)), I don't want a grind so I can save up to invent the ladder or something equally absurd as I might do on hard.

Tourists. I like the hawaiian shirts in the thumbnails, otherwise entirely uninteresting to me. Other people might like them, so not a huge problem, but they share the major issue with rescues, in detail below...

Rescues. Grossly too many of them, and they are entirely unconnected to my manned spaceflight progress. Send a probe to Jool, then rescue missions for Jool pop up even though my first Duna expedition is en route, in orbit around the sun. They need to be not in any SoI you have not landed on the parent body of---with kerbals (test for if a flag was planted).

Parts testing. Just as dumb as always. What, pray tell, is the difference between orbit (anywhere), and suborbital over _place_airless_world_here_? Ditto escape velocity out of X. You're in space (who thinks of these?). They are almost universally dumb. I only do any of them to take parts I want but don't have (and I do the test to get the part if so, I don't take the mission for the part, and do it later).

Explore… I like these, but I have been not getting them reliably. Maybe I passed some milestone too fast. Last try I got the Mun one, the try before I got Duna, but never the Mun, etc.

Ore. These contracts are written with the same attention to detail as all the others. Collect ore, and bring it from A to B. If A and B were meaningful, like extract ore from the Mun, and deliver it to a station above the Mun with an IRSU part… that makes sense. Bring X hundred units to Kerbin? Why? Or ore from Eve to Gilly? What? I have a probe in orbit, that's it. Dumb, all of them, IMO. I thought about doing one from the Mun as a sample return, but it's more than a single tank, and wasn't worth the trouble.

Surveys. Random, with no context, hence pretty dumb. 3 in one area, a 4th somewhere heavily displaced (for reasons). What about altitude requirements… WHY? I would be fine with that if they made some sort of sense… wide field observations, then below 4000m, then surface data… it's like Ranger and Surveyor. But it's just random. I do none of these at Kerbin, usually. I would do them perhaps if they were from orbit… an actual reason to launch a polar satellite instead of just launch missions.

Satellite launches. I'm fine with these around Kerbin. I never reuse them, that seems like cheating to me (they are commercial launches for a customer). Around any other body… they are really space probes, and should't be for 3d parties. If I send an orbiter, and there is a mission where the sat launch is right, I might take it, but I treat it as MY probe, not a commercial launch (I should;t have to pretend this way, science missions should be from MY program).

Visit A, then B, etc for reasons. Utterly uninterested in those. Maybe others like them for reasons.

Asteroid contracts. (Katateochi noted I had forgotten these) These are mostly also absurd make-work. Put it in orbit around X? Why? Do I then get a mission to build a base on the asteroid I just put in orbit around Eve, or did they just want to see me do it for reasons?

The missions/contracts are uninspired, and slapdash. They create no story arc---not a particular arc I want to see, but ANY story arc. I'm fine with sandbox/open-ended career, but the goal is a STORY. If you read the accomplished mission objectives in chronological order reduced to a sentence or 2 each, written conversationally/descriptively, it would be nice if it made sense as a story. Flew an orbital flyby of the Mun to mark landing sites. Next mission they successfully landed, etc.

Edited June 4, 2015 by tater

[Claw]

They create no story arc---not a particular arc I want to see, but ANY story arc.

This, in my opinion, is the problem more than anything. It isn't that the contracts are meaningless to me, it's that there is no story (or overarching context) into which the contracts fit. They are simply a mechanism to progress through the game, via another form of resources (funds).

The contracts are reflective of the fact that KSP is really a sandbox style game...that had a career system overlaid...in a series...of partial segments. It really creates a bumpy experience. And, on top of that, the open-endedness of the contract system doesn't really have any way to accept user preference. Hence, the contracts you care about seem scarce (because you use them up) while the ones you don't care for are abundantly available.

Strategies could also be more...strategic.

Cheers,

~Claw

[tater]

Absolutely, Claw.

I want to be clear that while I might have a story in mind that I like, I don't mean that everyone plays MY story. I want the contract (and to beat a dead horse MISSION) system to not be random, but to have it really be based on what the player has done, and perhaps wants to do (via actual strategies, which are nothing at all like what those are in game).

The rescues pretty much require the idea of a space race to make any sense at all, for example. Right now I take them if I like the name of the astronaut. One was actually the same name as my daughter, so she became my go-to scientist. If they have meh names… sorry bro, you get to die alone on the Mun.

[Kegereneku]

The contract is an awesome tool, it allow to recognize almost everything the player is doing, which for a game, is awesome.

But SQUAD still haven't crossed the step between "implementation" and "balanced feature", which wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't supposed to be a released 1.0. game.

The problem isn't in a lack of storytelliing, ideally the system could work without just out of his normal way of functioning. The problem lies in the lack of coherent filters and the abuse of every single fine prints line available.

I don't think I need to point out how ridiculous it is to test some impossible part following some pointless criteria.

Only that for now it feel like :

"Test an external seat with a tourist on it, between 2000m and 2500m of altitude, at a speed of 500m/s, on Jool, in a polar orbit. The tourist must take sample of the surface and get back home. The spaceship must possess two Mobile Processing Lab and a Stability Enhancer at all time. Reward : 14,356 funds & 0,1 reputation"

IMHO, concept like "Space Race" and "story millstone" have little to do with the problem and are more alternative mods than direct improvement.

A Space Race as was discussed looong before is pointless unless the 'Opponent' follow rule similar to ours and would require extensive "rubber band mechanic" to pretend the 'race' is tight. This is one of those ideas that looked better on paper.

As for Millstone-mission, it is simply soooo compatible with Contract that you could consider them correctly filtered contract.

Lastly, obviously Administration strategy and R&D will have to be balanced along Contract and surely available science. So far I don't think we need a big change, some fundamental one yes, but nothing quite different from what we have.

This is not because the system is lacking component that we should replace it entirely by another system.

[katateochi]

I pretty much agree with all your points tater.

Tourists. I do however like the tourist missions, but only when they are for places that I'm currently interested in going myself and when I can stack several of them together. What I've really enjoyed is creating a reusable process for taking large groups of them around Mun and Minmus but now I'm only getting contracts for further afield places. I would like a system that enabled you to state what destinations where available to tourists, rather than the tourists telling you what to do. (I've got more detail on this, keep meaning to write it up as a suggestion).

Rescues. Agreed.

Parts testing I actually dislike these so much that in my current career I've not done a single one of them.

Explore These are good, but they need to be transfer window aware (ie they should start appearing for planet X just around the time the transfer window for planet X is coming around).

Ore. yep, currently these are contracts for contracts sake.

Surveys. Some of these I like; when you get a cluster of points all on the ground a short distance from each other, because finally that's a real reason to bring a rover and it's actually more like doing a transect survey. But yes, they need more structure; at the very least have some predictable and biome related order (ie once you've been to a planet you start getting them, initially for the equatorial biomes and then as you complete those you get ones for the non-equatorial biomes and finally the polar biomes)

Satellite launches. I get bored of these pretty fast and they just become more clutter in orbit (so I quite often deobit them once the contract completes).

Visit A, then B, etc for reasons. I've pretty much completed my career (in terms of tech tree unlock) and I've never had one of these!

You didn't mention asteroid contracts. These I think have much more potential and are not utilized enough. So far I've had 2, one to bring one into orbit and other to eject one out of the system. The eject out of system ones are tedious and having done one I'm not likely to do another (just because the only challenge is how good your patience is at sitting through a long burn). But the capture ones are pretty good and (sort-of) seem like they have a purpose, or at least you can then invent your own purpose for it. But there also needs to be more urgent ones to redirect potential threat asteroids. I made this suggestion about having a early warning system and an obligation to protect Kerbin from potential impactors, but maybe a simpler thing might be to just have occasional contracts to redirect a specific asteroid on an impact course (and naturally these would have a much shorter window to complete it in than other contracts).

There also needs to be contracts to go and study specific asteroids (which should earn beaucoup science). Not necessarily to capture or redirect it, but to just grab hold of the target 'roid with a ship that has specific science parts. (and then actually be able to do materials/goo/other science readings from it). or maybe to take a specific survey team (ie two scientists and an engineer) to inspect asteroid X. You could then choose to take them directly to the asteroid or play it more like the proposed NASA missions and capture it with a unmanned craft and being it back home for the manned team to study more safely.

[Carraux]

Same to me...

I do not have the feeling, that contracts add some spice to the game. More or less it is exactly sandbox, only with obstacles to come to a fully expanded parts catalog. IMHO, it adds nothing to the game, only delays the inevitable. There is no reward of any kind if I complete the tech tree.

[Evanitis]

I like the contract system, even if there are types of tasks I'm yet to touch, and others have fine prints that are absolutely ludicrous.

Let me list the possible resons why could I dislike the system, and let me tell why it isn't the case:

It's the same as science mode with extra limitations: Yeah, totally. Same way as the sci mode equals sandbox with other type of limitations. Using either of these is totally optional. But what gaming shown me long ago is that limitations create challenge, and overcoming hardships is the source of fun. My first Mun-landing back in 0.24 was a blast. Mostly I didn't know what I was doing, didn't even know about the save-system. Than I becme an MJ junkie. In a few days I was sending motherships with multiple landers to Jool. I could do anything, and didn't -have- to do anything. Got bored quickly.

Next time I undusted KSP, there was a science mode. I had a goal! I sunk many hours into the game again. Still with the help of MJ, but it was limited too and I had to work hard to access my usual functions. It basically resurrected the game for me. And now there is career with missions and funding. Another limiting factor that gets me to do stuff that I normally wouldn't. I have never seen a point in learning to build and fly efficiently before. Five mainsails, ten jumbo tanks - universal solution for either a Moho-trip or just a Minimus landing, right? Same as manual orbit-changes: I never understood it, and never wanted to until the sat missions made me realize that it's easy and fun. Now I'm doing the rescues too. MJ is still there, but I really rarely touch it, using it mostly for the readouts.

There is no story, missions are silly: I don't know what other story people wish for than running a low-tech, low-funding space-program until it passes all possible boundaries. I don't know how closer it can get than the current one-time milestone quests (eg.: get to LKO, Mun flyby, Mun landing, etc).

And the random missions... yes, some of those make no sense. But who cares? It's Kerbals we are talking about. I believe all of us made things more stupid than our contractors require. And if not, we should be gald for them for further increasing the ridiculous-factor. I don't care if it makes no sense to test a Mainsail on a 10 km munar orbit. It's great fun to do so. Linking it to other missions and doing it efficiently also feels higly educational.

But there are types of contracts I dislike doing! Well, yes. But I don't -have- to do them. Once my favorite missions run out, I can just fast forward time to get new ones. It might come with a penalty if I picked quests that I can't or don't want to do, but who cares until all resources are infinite. Yet, as gaming thought us min-maxing, this system inspires me to do stuff I normally wouldn't. It makes me find that certain operations aren't as boring as I thought. I totally like how it's done: it inspires, but doesn't forces anything. I definately prefer the current setup to one that would force me to do a set series of 'story' missions, even if those are -all- well written, make sense, and progresses a story better than my imagination.

[tater]

Kegereneku, you entirely missed the point of my space race comment. I wasn't suggesting one, I said that the existence of rescue missions implies a space race as a narrative. From a story standpoint, "why" matters. My kerbal isn't the first on the Mun if there is a wrecked craft there that I know of (even if I don't take the mission). That implies another program, so I get the anti-immersive element of that, with none of the pluses an actual space race would add. If they are going to implicitly add competitors, why don't they make use of it.

Story matters for immersion. It would be bad enough if there was no positive arc to play due to contracts, but it actually harms immersion. You are working towards the milestone of first kerbal on the Mun or Duna... And you get spammed with rescues on/around the Mun/Duna. Guess Jeb isn't the first. Planning a Duna Direct sorta mission with habs and isru en route, and a few companies want ore moved from Ike to Duna, and others from Duna to Ike? Just dropped on the ground, or do they have facilities there (the only reason to want a delivery would be to have someone to receive it).

Evantis, some of the contracts aren't stupid, most all of them are. Most all part testing is bad. Rescues are bad due to inappropriate locations (where I have yet to send a kerbal), and HUGE numbers of them (there must be many competitors as they have more stranded in space than I have astronauts period). Ore contracts are all busy work. Sat contracts around any world but Kerbin are absurd. Station or base contracts are all absurd---all should be delivered, then abandoned by the player, they are built for a customer after all, not yourself. Asteroid contracts are also dumb. Ejecting one bound to hit Kerbin would be OK, but landing them? Dumb. (#verylolkerbalexplosions)

Edited June 4, 2015 by tater

[Tw1]

I would like a system that enabled you to state what destinations where available to tourists, rather than the tourists telling you what to do. (I've got more detail on this, keep meaning to write it up as a suggestion).

I would've liked tourism to need bases and stations as destinations. This would be a real reason to set bases and stations. The tourists could then be taken on flights, rover trips, surface visits, etc, from the base or station.

Now, to continue in the format that seems to be happening here:

Rescues: Also don't like the way the are currently. Having other kerbals out there robs you of any pioneering feel.Sure, if you consider the space program as a startup in a world where there are already many space programs, a lot of things about the game make more sense. But it's just not as interesting. Let the player make the historic first steps. If there is to be kerbals to rescue, let them be found in places I've already been a few times.

Parts testing: I don't mind it, some of the odd things it makes you do can be interesting on kerbin, If you want something tested in space it should be a serious test.

Explore: I'd much rather the system Streetwind proposes: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/120974-Missions-or-Milestones-Let%E2%80%99s-Expand-On-The-1-0-Contract-System

Surveys: While there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea, they seem a poor excuse for proper surface exploration.

Satellite launches: I also don't mind this. It's sort of something your space program might be asked to do. But I do think it's still quit flawed.

Perhaps instead of what happens now, satellites should leave your control once they are in the right orbit, and disappear from the tracking station.

I suppose the same should happen with the base/station contracts. Perhaps they could be saved somewhere, so they can be re-appear if further contracts need you to interact with them. Though I can see them having a place, being asked to by contracts is was a poor excuse for not having benefits to setting up stations/bases, though that is starting to change, now we have ISRU, and lab processing. (I still want research contracts though.)

Contracts do add a lot to the game, but I'd still like some sort of budget... but that's a debate for another thread.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Tw1

[tater]

What is needed within the current career/contract system (barring a total redo of the whole thing) is to have the contracts actually interact with each other in a meaningful way. That's in addition to eliminating all the really dumb contracts and replacing them (which is major, since the large majority are simply awful).

Again, I would like to see at least one new contract type---a MISSION, which belongs to the player to be introduced (it's just a contract with the player flag as the logo, not difficult). In addition, perhaps player chosen "strategy contracts" that function as auto-completed contracts in a sense, and those are prerequisites for other contracts, more later...

For example in Tw1's tourism suggestion, there would be a station contract, but it would be to explicitly create a space hotel. Completing this contract unlocks contracts to deliver and retrieve tourists from that location.

In my "Strategy Contract" suggestion above, there might be "Tourism," "Probe Space Exploration," Kerballed Space Exploration," "Kerbin Orbital Facilities," etc, etc. You take "Probe Space Exploration" and the "contract" is instantly completed---but that contract is a prerequisite to unlock contracts to place space probes at various bodies (combined with current progress, so if you have already visited the Mun and Minmus, and you selected the probe contract, you'd then get to see Duna, Eve, etc probe contracts).

It's a sort of smart, directed filtering.

Short of that, at least have the extant contracts have more prerequisites/requirements before they appear. Have the locations less random, and more directed at some level. Have the Survey contracts (these should be MISSIONS, argh) worthwhile by making them ways to pick landing sites. What if science out off context was grossly lowered in points, and science done… scientifically, had a multiplier? First landing is always max data, but each subsequent landing (even in new "biomes") drops the base points. They come back up in points via scientist skill, and via the survey missions, which direct the scientists to collect from specific areas of interest. Maybe even the multi-part contracts like explore/survey could require they be done in order… spitballing here.

Unless parts testing actually unlocks parts, they are just to make stupid contraptions. Most all are just dumb, too. I can see testing a part in vacuum, but there is no possible reason it needs to be tested in identical vacuum over the Mun, or escaping Kerbin, whatever.

Stations/bases/satellites built for 3d parties should NOT belong to the player. They should pay out, change ownership, then open new contracts for resupply, repair, or expansion.

Ore? Any ore contracts should be predicated upon existing facilities. Moving ore is just dumb---though really ore to fuel should be only X% efficient so the dv budgetary issues are real (hauling ore to refine elsewhere should not be a thing unless you can literally jump off the body in question). A more immersive mission would be to resupply a certain existing facility with X amount of fuel every XX days for a while. Set it up so that IRSU is the ideal (though not only) solution. Moving ore from Gilly to Eve? That's like a mission to collect some snow on Mt. Everest, and move it to the summit of K2. For reasons.

Edited June 4, 2015 by tater

[GusTurbo]

I agree with your suggestions, the contracts really just feel disjointed and unrewarding.

One thing I would add is that I think the generated flavor text is bad. I really wish the game provided actual explanations of the mission rather than a jumble of nonsense. When I tried to revisit career after 1.0, I once found myself attempting to read the text after being a little confused by the mission requirements. Of course, I quickly remembered that no such help could be found. It was somewhat amusing at first, but it really adds nothing to the game.

[Wjolcz]

I think ore contracts should be more like "Take it from planet X and bring it back to Kerbin, because we feel like there are some precious minerals we want to look at/sell."

"Mine it on Eve and put in Laythe's orbit" type of thing has way more ore onboard than sense to me.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Veeltch

[Bug_]

I tend to agree. It would be better if there were some sort of arc to it rather than sporadic, random contracts. But I do like it currently as it is, since it's more about challenges without any real reason behind them. My suggestions would be:

SATELLITE/VESSEL LAUNCHES - It does feel like cheating if it's supposed to be that company's vessel, and then you take it and land it on some other planet for your own gain. This would be a good place for an arc - companies should give you multi-step projects, rather than single irrelevant tasks. Once you get your satellite in orbit, it should become an unknown object like an asteroid or a kerbal to rescue (when you get close to it you get control of it, but if you get too far from it it becomes an unknown object. If you are controlling it and you take it say, too far out of the orbit or off the surface or wherever the company wanted it, the project terminates and you don't get the rest of the contracts for that project. BASICALLY, a set of contracts making up a project, that build on each other. 1 - get sattelite in orbit. 2 - use that satellite to transmit science from that orbit. 3 - move the satellite to an orbit around a different planet. 4 - land it on the surface, take more science. You get the idea.

[Tw1]

For example in Tw1's tourism suggestion, there would be a station contract, but it would be to explicitly create a space hotel. Completing this contract unlocks contracts to deliver and retrieve tourists from that location.

IDK. I can see it working, but I'd rather the opposite. Give the player a reason to set up these things, and see them do it on their own, rather than telling them what to do each step of the way. Informing them they need a station/base to send tourist to would be helpful though.

[tater]

What about the dummy contract idea, perhaps? Select "Orbital tourism" as a contract, and it autocompletes, which unlocks some sort of orbital tourism contracts which otherwise you would not have seen. Short of the hotel, perhaps some contracts that require a several days on orbit in a craft with a cupola Building the station is then a choice.

The basic idea is more dependency in contracts, both to general parameters (only send rescues or tourists to SoIs where you have planted flags, for example), as well as to specific contracts (in order for contract Y to be offered, contract X must have been completed).