Contracts at their finest :)

[Hcube]

Always a ton of fun ! I want much more money for this kind of stuff ! Mind you, this is mid career...

I might get this contract just for the challenge though Although the contracts are very random and weird, i must admit they are often very funny

[falloutaddict]

That's nothing, I had one that wanted me to mine ore from Laythe and deliver it Jool! o.O

[AbacusWizard]

Still easier than mining ore from Jool and delivering it to Laythe.

[worir4]

The last step of maintaining stability landed on Gilly is harder than you think.

[Motokid600]

I would have no problem if i didnt have to perform any of these stock contracts ever again. The whole system is crap imo. It needs direction. 'Test SRB on a suborbital flight on the Mun." ... Im so sick of that crap ive given up completely on career mode.

Its not fun for an experienced player. Its just not. At all. Maybe for the "lol so kerbal" newbie, but.. not me. Squad needs to completely do away with the current contract system and instead provide one that has direction more along the lines of a tech tree like experience.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Motokid600

[Anglave]

I would have no problem if i didnt have to perform any of these stock contracts ever again. The whole system is crap imo. It needs direction. 'Test SRB on a suborbital flight on the Mun." ... Im so sick of that crap ive given up completely on career mode.

Its not fun for an experienced player. Its just not. At all. Maybe for the "lol so kerbal" newbie, but.. not me. Squad needs to completely do away with the current contract system and instead provide one that has direction more along the lines of a tech tree like experience.

Seconded, and couldn't agree more.

[Rocket Farmer]

Lol at people that complain about the inclusion of optional content. If you don't like the contracts then play sandbox. There you go, problem solved.

As an "experienced" individual I find that after having been everywhere that the contracts offer nice challenges that keep the game interesting. I have put a SRB into suborbital flight around the mum. It was great.

[tater]

Lol at people that complain about the inclusion of optional content. If you don't like the contracts then play sandbox. There you go, problem solved.

As an "experienced" individual I find that after having been everywhere that the contracts offer nice challenges that keep the game interesting. I have put a SRB into suborbital flight around the mum. It was great.

That's not career play. Career play shouldn't involve utterly stupid contracts like this one (or your SRB example). Why would anyone move ore anywhere, for any reason? How is vacuum on the moon, orbiting the moon, or suborbital differ from any other vacuum?

Dumb contracts are just dumb, and saying "play sandbox" is simply lazy. Career is a cruddy afterthought, and almost all contracts should be scrapped and redone properly.

[clivman]

Still easier than mining ore from Jool and delivering it to Laythe.

Or mining ore from the sun and delivering it to Eeloo

[oriramikad]

I wish contracts were more like the Challenges we have here on the forum. "Build a less than 10 ton SSTO capable of carrying two passengers to orbit." "Build a plane using only ion engines and fly it to <coordinates>."

[Randazzo]

The last step of maintaining stability landed on Gilly is harder than you think.

What do you mean? This isn't the proper angle for ascent?

[federicoaa]

I ejected a class D asteroid from the solar system... the prize was 1.5M so it was worth it

[Rocket Farmer]

@tater

You are sitting at a computer steering little green men while they explore space and explosions. You seem concerned with it being "dumb," "stupid," and "cruddy" and yet you still spend time on it. You are fine with imaginary vacuum in different imaginary locations as measured on your imaginary science devices and yet consider there being differences between these items "dumb."

KSP is a one of the kind game that tackles orbital mechanics with tongue in cheek humour that is totally on point. I have had hundreds of hours of entertainment for the low cost of $30 and I have actually learned a fair bit about a very difficult concept. It's unfortunate that you aren't mature enough to appreciate it.

If you want the real thing NASA is hiring, otherwise control the small minded nerd rage that things arent exactly as you want them.

[Mipe]

Oh boy, here we go. "Contracts need more work." "Go join NASA if you want the real thing, you ingrate!"

[KerikBalm]

The way these contracts are checked, you don't actually have to do that.

You need only mine the required ore on the surface of eve... you don't need to lift *that ore* to eve orbit and gilly.

You can simply mine the ore on Eve's surface to get the green check for that part... and then bring the required amount of ore from any entirely different source to gilly

[Old Foxboy]

Th Rocket you need to land on Eve and extract Ore and then lift off again might be as big so that the contract might as well be:

"Extract 2800 units of ore from Eve and put Gilly in your cargo bay on the way back"

[Kuu Lightwing]

I wish contracts were more like the Challenges we have here on the forum. "Build a less than 10 ton SSTO capable of carrying two passengers to orbit." "Build a plane using only ion engines and fly it to <coordinates>."

well this particular contact is pretty much like a challenge. In fact, last reddit challenge has "300 ore from Eve to Gilly" as Hard Mode. It's not like it wasn't inspired by these contacts... I'm actually working on delivering ore from Eve to Tylo.

[Old Foxboy]

@tater

You are fine with imaginary vacuum in different imaginary locations

LOL, mmd. The vacuum may as well be in a very real location between our ears.

[Shiva]

I would have no problem if i didnt have to perform any of these stock contracts ever again. The whole system is crap imo. It needs direction. 'Test SRB on a suborbital flight on the Mun." ... Im so sick of that crap ive given up completely on career mode.

Its not fun for an experienced player. Its just not. At all. Maybe for the "lol so kerbal" newbie, but.. not me. Squad needs to completely do away with the current contract system and instead provide one that has direction more along the lines of a tech tree like experience.

You got that right. How hard would it be to fix it. Come on Squad, this is a major part of the game.

[Hcube]

Hey hey hey. Contracts DO need more work and i don't like testing the "kickback" SRB on suborbital flight over Eeloo either, but this is not a complain thread ! Just share the most underpaid, the hardest and the funniest contracts the game has come up with if you wish. Because although the contracts are broken, they are often funny.

Except when no one tells me that this satellite has to be launched in a counter-kerbinwise orbit and i figure it out when it's too late to revert, dang it !

[AndyMt]

I agree that Squad has to work on the contracts. There should be kind of a storyline on top of these randomly generated contracts. In very early career we have that with those "Break altitude record ###" contracts etc. But after "explore Minmus" somehow the storyline breaks up. Sometimes even earlier. I never got any contract saying: "explore Eve". Never!

There could be different storylines with different focus:

- space race for science to all planets and moons

- science in LKO

- commercial space

[kzauner]

I agree that Squad has to work on the contracts. There should be kind of a storyline on top of these randomly generated contracts. In very early career we have that with those "Break altitude record ###" contracts etc. But after "explore Minmus" somehow the storyline breaks up. Sometimes even earlier. I never got any contract saying: "explore Eve". Never!

This is a somehow complicated topic, IMO. I'm not from the game-producing industry, but I assume that such 'small' improvements would in fact have a huge impact on the whole development and the team, and staffing. KSP, as it is has absolutely no storyline. There are some contracts. which are, are, as we all know are more or less randomly generated, and sometimes hilarious (this is addresses in game as you can just 'decline' them).

here

The moment you start scripting a story/progress you can easily introduce 'game breaking bugs' on a logic level. As it is now it's completely irrelevant if you get a 'explore ike' contract or not. The starting contracts as they are just give you some initial funding and a rough guide of progress (and, after 'land on mün/minmus' the most players should have figured the basics out anyway and don't require a guiding hand anymore, or don't they).

Yes, squad may look into some 'logic issues', probably in form of blacklists, to rule out some rather stupid stuff. I totally see the point in asking for a more complete contract system - but if i think about it: this would mean some story-telling and scripting and a complete other focus on development as well as Q/A. As such a system would likely introduce game braking logic bombs. And It would be a problem if you don't get a 'explore Duna' because you won't get a 'expore Eve' later on on a story-line tree. In the end, this would mean KSP would require some play-through logic.

To my mind: The issue boils down to 'what is KSP intended to be, gamewise'. I look at it as a sandbox-game. Yes, I play career - but for me it's still a sandbox game, you just don't have all the parts at the beginning of your career.

[tater]

They need not be "scripted," they just need to, one, not be stupid (the majority are absurd), and two, have hooks that connect contracts logically.

[TheTom]

Actually what is countering this is that there are mods doing logical progressions of contracts. Scansat has one or two, RemoteTech has one. So, it is possible. And it is done.

[tater]

@tater

Non-argument strawman snipped.

Yes, everything has to either be 100% realistic, or just stupid, got it. Either it simulates chatting at the water-cooler level detail, or it might as well be #LOLKERBALS stupid. That's the effective summary of your argument.

The current contract system is bad gameplay. Not a bad simulation of a space program, bad game design, regardless of subject.

KSP could be about aliens flying around with their warp-drives, throwing physics out the window as a starting assumption, and the contract/career system would still be awful game design. Good "career" games need a few things:

In no particular order:

1. They need to tell a story. Note that this doesn't mean a script, it means that looking back at the gameplay, it should have a logical arc. This engages the player.

2. If it is to be a career, the designers need to think about what role the player is assuming, and make the career take that into account as a focus. The player is not an astronaut in KSP, he is maybe the director of the space program, so that is the level where the goals, etc.should be set.

3. Rewards systems. Most games have a goal, and rewards systems in games like this tend to be getting new stuff to play with. Players unconsciously play to the reward system, period. Having the rewards end early is a problem as a game design. Alternate reward systems can be within the same game, but KSP really has just the one.

4. Replay. Ideally, no two games would be exactly the same. KSP is always the same. Better contracts might help, but random, stupid, contracts don't because you read them as just absurd, not as a challenge for a space program. Having the Kerbol system change with a new game and have to be actually explored (via and for Science!) would massively improve replay.

5. A goal. It need not be entirely set by the game, the player could have options, but there needs to be an end-goal the player has in mind. Explore everything, or begin the process of colonizing other worlds, whatever.

Why does the current contract system fail so badly? The absurdity of the contracts breaks any sense of story arc unless you happen to think of play exclusively as #LOLKERBALSBOOM. If that is the only way to visualize kerbals, the game fails at this. Maybe some contracts should be destructive testing (manned) to drive this home. "See how many kerbals can safely land with one parachute" might be a good one (no reverts). "LOL, Jeb's dead!" I think most people don't play career this way, actually. Generally speaking, a "mission" system is designed to move the game forward, and to set up novel situations for the player.

The current system is to spam ridiculous missions, with the player ignoring the large majority of them. This isn't a mission system, because the player gets to pick, and the player is not driving the missions (as director of a space program) because the player has no control over the direction of missions (which he should).

If you think the current system is good game design, you must not have played many good career games. Note that most games get this wrong, so that would be unsurprising, computer game designers tend to think of the mechanics, but not the gameplay design. This is clear in the "sandbox" nature of KSP. They need an RPG/boardgame (old-school, hex board boardgames) geek mindset to really fix career.