Contracts at their finest :)

[Tw1]

I would very much enjoy a system where I can specify my own mission parameters piecemeal.

I think specifying parts of a mission is redundant. If we had a budget system based on achievements, there would be no need to specify beforehand at all. Plus, you'd avoid missing out on the reward for stuff you did do, but forgot to tick off before hand.

I do mind the fact that all stations and bases once done get forgotten.

There should be far less missions of "put station in orbit" and more: "Transfer Kerbal to station X", "attach [module] to station X", "Fetch [experiment] results from station X lab to Kerbin", "Refill fuel of station X", "Move station to orbit" or even "Undock [generated] craft and land it on Kerbin."

Generally, make the stations and bases an actual important part of the game, not something you keep for 10 seconds before deorbiting.

While I agree stations should be a bigger part of the game, this just sounds like more busywork.

Maybe it could work if the flavour text was done well, and it was a request that made sense, like a kerbal's family wanting him home...

But IMHO, the game should move away from trying to tell us what to do, and instead try to set up reasons for us to do stuff. Perhaps station one is in a good position to run some long term experiment, but that would need more Kerbals and another lab. That's a reason to go shuffing things around. No need for arbitrary requests.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Tw1

[tater]

Tw1, having reasons to do things that are real (in gameplay terms) always trumps "points," IMO, you could not be more correct there. In a perfect KSP, the system would be randomized on replay, and you'd need to do certain science to learn things to help you plan more advanced missions. Science to let you do stuff you want to do, and the "goal" would just be to see what the heck that cool world over there actually looks like (better terrain all around, nothing less complex than the Mun).

A budget system is indeed the best, IMO. I think a combination of life support (something simple, like roverdude's new LS mod), and having "budgeted" missions (not contracts, stuff your program does as a NASA analog) pay out every XX days a subset of total funds. My idea was a Minmus Month (50 days), then have a button that skips to the next fiscal month (minmonth). Yeah, you might have to skip ahead sometimes if you spend poorly at the beginning, so what, time progresses).

The real 3d party contracts would be for more immediate funding, and would work as now, but would be available more rarely in time, and expire quickly. Launch a sat, get paid (and the sat is no longer yours). Future commercial missions might repair that craft, add to it (if a station), return it, etc.

[Pixel Kola]

Contracts are the cancer of the game. They are so incoherent and illogical. So sad that Squad had such poor planning and execution, much less creativity and logic when designing the contract system. They need to give the game a modularized contract system where you can choose the pile of crap that exists now, or customize your own progression style that integrates with the tech tree and can adapt to mods that include modules.

The way it is now gives the game no purpose other than to create your own goals in sandbox but you don't have the feel of progression or leveling that successful games have.

[Evanitis]

I feel I'm reading a heated argument and I agree with -both- sides. I loved KSP when it was only sandbox, loved the limitations that science mode brought, and loved the more severe limitations introduced by the career mode.

Career play shouldn't involve utterly stupid contracts like this one.

Not that I disagree with that career could use more varied missions and some story arc... I agree that immersion-breaking and downright impossible missions shouldn't appear... ...but I'd miss the -stupid- ones. It's good to know that I (as a director of a space-program) am not the only silly being on Kerbin with access to huge assets. And if some silly wants to pay me for shooting tons of ore out of the solar system, I'd thank him for giving me a reason to do so. Sane players can just turn down the offer, and wait for one that makes more sense.

Wait, did I just write that about a game that's easily moddable? I don't mind whatever happens to stock until I can DL a pack of stoopid missions. And probably sunglasses too for my Kerbals. Disregard me.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Evanitis

[tater]

Tw1 said something above about being "told what to do," and I have a small point to add in disagreement.

It is partially a result of the word "contract" being used for ALL missions, when I would also expect to have internal (to my space program) missions. Right now those would be only launches done with no 3d party contract, which is silly.

I would prefer to have a large number of "contracts" changed to "missions" that would come from my program. The player is the director of KSC, and we have employees we sort of interact with (Gene, Werner, Linus, etc). When there is a mission to collect samples from region 3217B and nearby locations, I would prefer to see them pitched as Linus and the science team think this area will have interesting finds. Perhaps such locations could be selected in a way that is weighted towards resources since that's a thing now. I don't mind some being pretty darn random, or even having to work within the already coded framework of "accept mission (contract) as presented."

It sounds like a trivial change, but I would assume that such a change would include really working to create meaningful missions to chose from instead of the junk we have now.

All predicated on a time/budget paradigm, though.

Totally spitballing here, but what if you got an annual budget based upon your Rep (paid out in increments over the year), and then your staff posts mission ideas that are sorted by how much of the annual budget they get? Commercial/tourism stuff is off-budget, and used to raise extra cash. That or the annual budget is a cap, and you pick missions until you read the cap. Then you have to compete them to see where rep goes for the next cap. On budget missions would be science missions. The more science you get within a given mission, the more rep.

there could be a new category of missions that are "training." These would replace some of the upgrade stuff like r&ad or astronaut complex to collect samples, EVA, etc. The extant dock with another craft mission, for example. Have them able to pay out in XP for the astronauts. Some new types to train for science and engineering can be added. Anyway, there have been tons of ideas posted about how to fix the he abysmal state of career/contracts, nothing new here.

[ansaman]

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

You could fart on Gilly and go an amazing distance. In real life, this happened on the ESA on the Rosetta mission when their little lander Philae failed to attach itself to the surface and bounced to a location which lacked sufficient sun exposure.

[nalfz]

I've had the contract system ask me to take a tourist on a suborbital flight over the sun...

[DestinyPlayer]

In my opinion? Keep these stupid contracts, but separate them into different companies, and add/change some of the other into serious ones. I quite imagine there being at least some Kerbal agencies that are in it just for laughs and boosters, and some agencies that actually want something done.

[Kegereneku]

I would like to distinguish myself from Tater (with which I certainly already had this sort of argument) and other gut&remake-the-Contract. The current Administration/Contract would be good if it was actually balanced/filtered, and the worst I would do to Contract except the above is abandon the "Companies-flag" to replace them by mission-type icon indicating the job done. (and purge ALL SILLY TEXTS, seriously who read them ?)

It seems that Keg above especially wants a reward system built into Kerbal. Why isn't coming up with your own mission plan and executing it well sufficient for reward? Why do you need s contract that also says good job?

Late answer is late,

I don't want a reward system, unless you consider a reward having a Career-themed Gameplay that feel like an Career and not random nonsensical missions leading strictly nowhere and discourage building infrastructure (Extract Ore from Eve ! What the point ?!). If I only wanted excuse to build stuff, I would simply play in Sandbox.

If you don't see what I mean, imagine if a game like "Tomb Raider" played like a Gun-Game, "STALKER" asked to deliver pizza and "Arma 3" made you an One-man-Army.

Right now, Contracts, as well as Administration-Strategy, Building-Upgrade and R&D-Tech-tree (which are all linked) are extremely lacking in Synergy.

In a normal game, you'd have to use strategy and chose your missions and your technology carefully to progress in the game.

Alas here the use of Strategy is pointless, contract are either impossible to FAIL or impossible to WIN (as in achieve a profit). You aren't building a Space Program you are simply avoiding stupid contract and GRINDING through the Tech-tree (which seemingly follow the logic that if your choices don't matter you can't fail).

BTW : I don't ask to filter-out all "simply difficult" mission, I just want them to not appear over illogical progress.

Even if you lived in a Heinlein's Rockpunk wet dream, you wouldn't have Tourist asking for flight to the Mun or Duna minutes after you did it with a probes.

Someone said "you can just refuse". True, but (1) it mean I wont have anytime soon intelligently-made Kerbin-suborbital tourists I can actually build an economy on, (2) It do horrible things to our Immersion and self-esteem. (like "Why do I keep having suicidal tourists and useless satellite ?! Is my Space Program that pointless ?! Am I considered a Firework-factory ?")

Ps : while we are all at "describe your own KSP" :

My dream KSP is mostly current contract & administration, except you can fail and depend at 50% on a Periodic-nonstackable-Budget to do anything.

You are NOT guided, the contract/mission adapt to what you DO or NEED. You put a lander on X ? A Mission appear to finance a rover 'anywhere'. You have reusable vehicle with lot of seats ? One Contract is for tourist. You need science ? One contract is a science Mission to place you haven't done before. You don't have a specific launch vehicle ? a Contract ask for a launcher capable of putting [fixed-subassembly] at X place. (based on Data from SQUAD beta-tester & difficulty)

[windows_x_seven]

Jeez, people, this thread is about showing "unusual" contracts, not about arguing on whether the contract system should be revamped or not. You guys have been arguing for pages, go argue on a "Should the contract system be changed" topic or something.

[Terwin]

BTW : I don't ask to filter-out all "simply difficult" mission, I just want them to not appear over illogical progress.

Even if you lived in a Heinlein's Rockpunk wet dream, you wouldn't have Tourist asking for flight to the Mun or Duna minutes after you did it with a probes.

Someone said "you can just refuse". True, but (1) it mean I wont have anytime soon intelligently-made Kerbin-suborbital tourists I can actually build an economy on, (2) It do horrible things to our Immersion and self-esteem. (like "Why do I keep having suicidal tourists and useless satellite ?! Is my Space Program that pointless ?! Am I considered a Firework-factory ?")

Are you suggesting that NASA does not regularly get people asking to go to the Moon, Mars, or Venus?

I suspect they even received requests to go to Pandora after Avatar came out.

I figure that you don't usually get tourists trying to go to Duna until you have put a probe there because hey are filtered out by your lower-level minions.

I am sure they also filter out the people who want to go somewhere for prices that are too low to make a real contribution to the cost of the mission(like people asking NASA for a first class ticket to the Moon for ~$2000).

Once your reputation is high enough, you will get tourists wanting to go places you have not even placed a probe.(last night I launched a Duna Cruse mission with 5 Duna tourists (note: my first Duna probe is still ~180 days pre-Duna SOI and my first manned Duna mission is roughly 220 days from the Duna SOI) I assume that this is due to my underlings drinking the Koolaid and my 100% survival rating thus far.

-----

As far as internal missions, it seems reasonable that those missions would have a low or zero funds pay-out and a high prestige/Science pay out. Much like the Spirit, Opportunity and Curiosity Rovers provided prestige and science, but any funding boosts were probably more of an indirect effect.

[PB666]

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.

Uh, well, you can reject the contract. Though I must say this, if you are Kerbin's premium space agency and, eh-hem, you have the only means to get to space, how exactly do contractor kerbins get stranded in space without a ship or with only a capsule? This I always thought was odd, if you had to rescue kerbals from kerbin I would think that more realistic. And why would they defect when rescued. Im still gathering information around Mun and Meinmos and I have a contract for rescuing some contractor around gilly, realistical, he's toast, and BTW would run out of air and food before I could launch a ship capable of reaching gilly.

If say you rescued a competitors craft and kerbal shouldn't you be rewarded with the science of their technology (like getting your hands on a defectors Mig-[Latest thing off the assembly line]

BTW NASA has examined atmospheric composition of the moon, several times, I think the Chinese did so as well. We even crash a probe into the moon to see what kind of gases were ejected. However I should point out that the major focus now of space science is astronomy and spectroscopy (Gamma ray observatory, Hubble, Webb) and KSP has only IR and radiotelemetry. So that is a deficiency. There is alot of science dollar support for observational space science.

For example before we have a mission to Duna, Jool, Eeloo, etc. shouldn't we have a contract to gather information about the planet by placing a satellite in super-meinmos orbit (surrogate for Kerbin-Kerbol L2).

Also shouldn't we have satellites around Kerbin and Kerbol that track asteroids and report on intercepts to the tracking station.

[Sharpy]

Eh... all the tourists that want to go to Eve surface.

And "establish a surface outpost"...

What are the consequences of aborting a contract in progress? Say, dump the tourist in the outpost onto Eve surface, collect for the point on the route, then cancel the contract?

[John FX]

Working in video production it is plain to me when a series of scenes in a video has no story. Part of my job is to take a series of almost unconnected elements and find the story hidden in them, edit them and shape them into a story. Apart from `explore Mun`, `explore Minmus`etc there is no progression of contracts and no story to engage the player at all.

Story and the feeling of progression are essential to having a career game IMHO.

If the contracts were more aware of the state of the players game as in what tech nodes are unlocked, what is next as well as what planets the player has been to and what they have done there recently then the contracts could be much better shaped to convince the player they were part of a progressive story that ultimately leads them to explore the system with an increasingly sophisticated series of craft they designed themselves.

I know a lot of `impossible contracts` now do not appear but it is not enough to just eliminate the truly obviously impossible.

Offering the player test contracts for items they have not already unlocked would be part of it so the player thought they were testing them for a reason. Offering contracts to provide new science, not giving them `plant a flag on the mun` just after doing exactly that would be part of it. Checking that the criteria for success are possible and also that the contract would make sense to actually do in a space program would be part.

Once that basic framework was set up for constantly interesting, meaningful contracts then a framework of a story could be built over the top for example contracts that form set pieces like `launch a vessel with a docking port to a 100km orbit` then ` launch another vehicle with a docking port to a 100km orbit and dock with the first vessel` for a very basic example. rendezvous, docking, station construction, resource scanning, ISRU, deep space exploration, solar monitoring, heavy lifting, anomaly exploration, and eventually things like grand tours. This is not an exhaustive list.

The player could have their skills developed with a set of tutorial contracts in this way that made them feel like they actually were developing a space agency and giving the pilots, scientists and engineers in the program the experience they need to explore the system etc.

The story would be engaging and the game would be better for it.

My 2 m/s...

EDIT :

@ Tw1 & Keg

I disagree but respect your constructive opinions. More flesh into the contracts would be nice but I don't see it as a priority at all.

I see Kerbals more as a traditional Lego set. The ones where you got a bunch of random pieces and you had to engage your creativity to determine how to proceed. I hauled out my old Lego set for my 6 year old nephew recently. He looked in the box for 3-4 minutes before he came over to ask where the directions were because he didn't know what the set was designed to build. When I said there were none build what you want he seemed confused.

I don't see the contract system as a guide to your space program development. I see them more as an optional have you tried this crazy idea. It seems that Keg above especially wants a reward system built into Kerbal. Why isn't coming up with your own mission plan and executing it well sufficient for reward? Why do you need s contract that also says good job?

You are talking about sandbox which is just a set of lego parts limited only by your imagination. In that mode coming up with your own mission plan and executing it well is a sufficient reward.

Career is more like buying a designed lego box set that comes with planned instructions with an end design in mind, not just `hey have you tried putting a yellow brick on top of a grey brick?` which is ultimately unsatisfying and not much better than no instructions.

Edited July 13, 2015 by John FX

[Sharpy]

As I see it: eh, leave the current random contracts as they are, but extend the preprogrammed contracts like the early record-setting way, way ahead, with branches and a progression.

[StrandedonEarth]

One way to make the part-test contracts more story driven is that the prototype tests need to be done before the part is unlocked. Sure, as long as you have the contract you can still use the part, but, well, does the "Dang-it!" mod tend to pick on those experimental parts?

[Xavven]

Sorry OP, your thread pretty much got hijacked and I'm afraid my post isn't going to bring it back on topic either.

Honestly, the contracts I enjoy the most are the early record setting contracts, "escape atmosphere," "make orbit," and the exploration contracts. I was also delightfully surprised when a "rendezvous in LKO" contract appeared, and later on, a "dock in LKO" contract. It reminded me of the Gemini missions and it felt like preparing the player for bigger missions to come.

I also really like the surface survey contracts. It makes me feel like I'm actually exploring a planet and taking readings at different locations to compare them and get an overall picture of the planet's past and present.

Squad could really improve career mode if they added more of those scripted contracts in. Think of it like any RPG where you have a main story line, but there are side quests too. Allow the player to ignore the main line if they want, or ignore the side missions.

Here are a few ideas on the scripted contract side to put together a logical progression for the player:

1. After "orbit Kerbin", a Mun flyby is scripted
   
2. Then an Orbit Mun contract
   
3. Then, a contract to land a probe on Mun, whether or not the player has unlocked probe cores. If the player hasn't yet, you've just inspired them to hit a certain part of the tech tree.
   
4. Then the rendezvous in LKO contract, followed by the dock in LKO contract.
   
5. Plant a flag on Mun + Sample return of Mun
   
6. Flyby of Duna (unlocks an Explore Duna mission afterward)
   
7. Flyby of Eve (unlocks an Explore Eve mission afterward)
   
8. Flyby's of multiple Joolian moons. Hopefully inspires a small probe that doesn't need to land or carry the heavier science instruments - just lots of delta-v and a player who wants to slightshot around the inner moons to play with more orbital mechanics.
   
9. Land an unmanned probe on Eve and transmit land or ocean data. (this teaches the player about a certain thing about the surface of Eve that makes that harder than it looks to transmit data)
   
10. Build a fuel depot in LKO (different from the random station contracts. This one is a fixed, scripted mission. It teaches the player the value of a depot that can refuel vehicles before they go interplanetary. Hopefully makes the player think about the ability to launch tanks dry --or just flat out suggest this in the mission text?)
    

Here are a few things I would tune on the "random contracts" side:

1. Estimate the amount of Delta-V required to do the contract, then factor in the payload being requested. This determines contract funding rewards. No more 2000 units of fuel in low solar orbit for what amounts to fifty bucks.
   
2. Wait until the player has completed the scripted rendezvous contract before rescue contracts show up. If I've already rescued 5 Kerbals and a "learn how to rendezvous!" contract shows up, I roll my eyes and say, "uh, duh, you idiots. I've BEEN rendezvousing."
   
3. If a part needs to be tested in space anywhere, it should just be in Kerbin orbit. Why would anyone pay to test their stuff on a suborbital trajectory on Moho when they could get the same test results in LKO for one one-hundredth of the cost? This breaks immersion :/
   
4. I don't see enough sample return missions. IRL sample returns are quite prized.
   
5. "Science from space around XYZ" should require a special part named "Mystery Experiment" that has a unique ID that is tracked from launch to contract completion. Mystery Experiments that were launched BEFORE accepting the contract will not fulfill the contract. This prevents the "use the same satellite I launched 25 years ago to infinitely farm money" exploit.
   
6. Satellite contracts should always require a Mystery Experiment as above. Prevents players from launching one sat that fulfills multiple sat contracts.
   
7. Surface survey/science contracts should remain unchanged as they are not so exploitable when they require you to read from a very specific location.
   
8. Contracts to refuel vessels, orbital depots, or surface bases that spawn for that contract. Kerbals cannot enter pods or living space in the depot. Once the contract is completed, they cannot withdraw fuel from the depot, and once they get out of range, the depot is despawned. Could be LFO, or LF for Nervs, or monopropellant for satellites for stationkeeping.
   
9. Contracts to rendezvous with an unmanned satellite to EVA and manually extend solar panels because their mission controller was too busy eating snacks and forgot to extend them, and the battery died. This is where you come in. Idea is totally not inspired from personal experience.
   
10. Please, no ore delivery contracts. Why would you do that when you could just mine at the delivery location? And if you can't because the ore is sparse there, why not just deliver LF+O from literally anywhere else?
    
11. No Eve return contracts until in the highest rep range, plus at least a Tylo return completed (just detect any craft that has landed on Tylo and THEN made Tylo orbit). Eve returns are an end-game feat.
    

[Sharpy]

1. If a part needs to be tested in space anywhere, it should just be in Kerbin orbit. Why would anyone pay to test their stuff on a suborbital trajectory on Moho when they could get the same test results in LKO for one one-hundredth of the cost? This breaks immersion :/
   
2. I don't see enough sample return missions. IRL sample returns are quite prized.
   
3. Please, no ore delivery contracts. Why would you do that when you could just mine at the delivery location? And if you can't because the ore is sparse there, why not just deliver LF+O from literally anywhere else?
   

For 1. - Allow *atmospheric* tests of various parts on other planets. And Low Sun Orbit. These are some significantly different conditions.

As for the other - this should be phrased and done differently: "Retrieve X units of sub-surface material". That's the ore for you. Always bring down to Kerbin and recover for a full reward, no silliness like "and deliver to Gilly orbit." That's not ore for making fuel for you. That's a ground sample in amounts exceeding pocket-size.

How many tons of lunar rock did the Apollo missions bring back?

[Kegereneku]

Are you suggesting that NASA does not regularly get people asking to go to the Moon, Mars, or Venus?

I suspect they even received requests to go to Pandora after Avatar came out.

Nope, they do Not regularly get people asking and capable of paying to go at any place NASA sent one unmanned probes. NASA didn't bring tourists on the Mun during the Apollo program and the only way for a Private Investor to land on Mars is if Elon Musk became an astronaut long after founding the world first most extraordinary mission of the century. (Those who read "The man who sold the Mun" should get what I'm coming at)

This is a big distinction because KSP's tourists are somehow fully capable of funding any damn missions even in non-reusable vehicle when they should actually not exist except for :

- that ONE tourist paying for a seat in an mission already planned.

- those dozen other tourists investing a lot of money for a mere suborbital hop in a cheap vehicle.

It's all about dosage and verisimilitude. If you treat 90% of stupid contract as if they were valid, your program will feel like 90% stupid.

To quote myself : I would like to stop feeling like I'm a Tour Operator in the game 'Kerbal Tourism Program'.

And as said numerous time now, the tourist aren't the source of the problem, they are only a symptom.

A symptoms of SQUAD not having put the time (yet) to balance and fully integrate several disparate features into a veritable cohesive Gameplay. Which is sad since most of the work must have been in the ability to track users action and generate specific contracts.

There's nothing bad in random generation of contents but by itself it don't necessarily mean random generation of goods contents, you need to filter thing.

And talking of filter, I don't think the game do (because no dV-reader) but I think it would improve to keep track of the mass/drymass of spacecraft sent anywhere. Because it's one thing to send a 4 tons in orbit, it's something else to send 100 tons on Eeloo.

[Kerbina]

I’m a beginner at KSP and I expected the career mode to be more like a guideline.

When I first opened sandbox I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of parts. I had no idea what the difference was between all those different engines or fuel tanks. Not even those numbers in the tooltip told me something.

So I looked into science. That was better, because I had limited parts and the sciencetree told me what parts were more advance than others.

Then I started career and the very first contracts worked fine. Then I put my first satellite into orbit and those tourist contracts started flowing in. Now I’m basically on my own (and Jeb is grumpy because those tourists reached space before he did).

I wished the contracts would be like a space program where one step leads to another.

Launch a vessel

Reach the upper atmosphere

Reach stable orbit

Do science over polar region (teaching me how to change orbits)

Land on certain places on Kerbal

Probe to Mun

Docking in space

Landing Probe on mun

Bring back some samples from mun

And from there all those next steps, minmus, probe to other planets, flybys, science.

All in a certain order that reflects their difficulty.

And for beginners like me there could be special tips with each contract that explain difficulties and help get all essential parts together.

All those other contracts could stay (with a filter that rules out those I could not achieve yet with my knowledge) I like the humor. But maybe give those space program contracts, that have to be fulfilled another color or priority.

[glen.mack]

Do you think contracts would be better if they were of a different nature?

[tater]

It's all about dosage and verisimilitude. If you treat 90% of stupid contract as if they were valid, your program will feel like 90% stupid.

Best quote in a long time.

And as said numerous time now, the tourist aren't the source of the problem, they are only a symptom.

A symptoms of SQUAD not having put the time (yet) to balance and fully integrate several disparate features into a veritable cohesive Gameplay. Which is sad since most of the work must have been in the ability to track users action and generate specific contracts.

There's nothing bad in random generation of contents but by itself it don't necessarily mean random generation of goods contents, you need to filter thing.

And talking of filter, I don't think the game do (because no dV-reader) but I think it would improve to keep track of the mass/drymass of spacecraft sent anywhere. Because it's one thing to send a 4 tons in orbit, it's something else to send 100 tons on Eeloo.

It's cohesiveness that really matters, I use the phrase "tells a story," and I don not mean a scripted story, I just mean that the missions have enough relatedness/progression that the player can create a story that makes sense in their mind. Imagine if NASA was like KSC, you'd send the first man to space, then the next flight is teasing a huge booster landed on the moon or something similarly random.

[Terwin]

At this point I think Squad can improve the game most by focusing on functionality, stability, and efficiency.

There are *lots* of contract packs and other ways to adjust your contracts to fit your tastes.

I would rather have Squad work on things that are harder to mod like Unity 5, Bug fixes, processing optimizations, Multiplayer(even though I doubt I would ever use it), 64 bit, Heat and Aerodynamics(I think this is already pretty good, but I don't fly a lot of planes), Physics(Kraken attacks are less common, but still occur, vibrating orbit predictions as well), etc as opposed to things that are relatively easy to tweak and extend like the contract system(Just takes a text file, I think, less if you use the Contract Configutator mod)

Once KSP has rock-solid stability for multi-player 64 bit builds on Windows and Mac that can handle every mod you want to throw at it without crashing after weeks of up-time flying Whack-job inspired ships without appreciable lag, it would be nice for them to address the contract system a bit(perhaps even have a switch to have silly/serious contracts depending on your preferred play style), until then, I feel that they have bigger fish to fry and should leave it mostly to the Modders.(of course adding tools for new types/styles of contracts could be done sooner)

[Carraux]

The whole contract system is more or less crap. Generating random goals to achieve does not make a storyline. It is even below a poor substitue of a story. Even filtering out stuff which is either pure impossible/unrealistic nonsense, I am left with contracts I do not really want to do (most of them at least). Because they are not fun or don't have much to do with [science based] rocketry.

So I do the contracts missions to get rewards to pay for my missions from where I don't get any reward...

And: The whole contract system is based on limited access to technology. With the rewards from the contract system I can "buy" this technolog from the tech tree. Once all technology is unlocked, career mode is nothing else than sandbox (with a budget, but this is only a minor differecne, money isn't the real problem in the game). And without story, the game is right from the beginning in sandbox mode. Except for unlocking all the parts. Or in other words: Career mode is nothing more than generating obstacles to hinder the player to play with the full tech tree right from the start. And that is exactly how it feels...

And the contract system itself does not fit well into the rest of the game. E.g. we have the astronaut complex and it is wise to have some scientist in early career mode. I can hire them for a lot of funds (about 3 times the price of a simple orbital rocket...). Or I can rescue Kerbals from orbit. Which in return gives me profit AND reputation and Kerbals (and therefore scientists). But this makes the astronaut complex completely superabundant, because hiring Kerbals is the only purpose of this building... And this just one example

I case of a casual sandbox fun simulation, KSP is really great. But as a game it is not well designed, because game mechanics don't work at all.

My 2 cents...

(And no: I won't mention ladders!)

Edited July 15, 2015 by Carraux

[Warzouz]

Contracts are mostly good, they provuide cash, but I regret that some are quite dull.

Satellites are cash only. They are only offered on already visited worlds. Insteal they could be "one step ahead" and be provided to every bodies before even the "explore" contracts.

Stations buildings are mostly un usefull. They are offered wuite a lot even if there are already stations in orbit. Instead, those contracts could be "upgrade" contracts. I usually edit the save file to convert those mission to "upgrade" to be more RP

I'm not too fond of tournist constact which want to visite multiple bodies in on travel. They require a specific mission with there own timing which confiscate one mission slot for a while. Those mission aren't even fun once you visited Mun/Minmus multiple time. I would like to have coheret tourist missions where all kerbal want to go on the same destination.

The "test parts" mission are usually not that interesting. You usally have to design a specific wackjob mission. Maybe design constraints on missions could be more fun : for example : go to mun orbit/landing using (part list) ant not using (part list).

The "visit location" contracts are usually too long to validate. There are usually 3, 4 ot 5 location to visit. It should be adapted to the body. 5 for Minmus/Bop/Pol/Gilly, 3 for Mun/Eeloo, 2 for Duna/Vall/Moho, 1 for Eve/Tylo/Laythe. But I would like to getsom biome specific missions (get science XXX from biome XXX), especially on Kerbin, early game.

Visiting specific location (canyons/non biome specific, arches, monolith...) could also be a very nice RP addition, instead of those random flat locations...

Hopefully, you can "decline" contract to get new ones withoutn accepting them. We can cycle through contract until we find something interesting. Sadly, that's not too RP. A "negociation" system could be fun : select you mission parameters (thus setting you desired level of difficulty) and you would get a calculated advance and reward.

So If I want to go to Jool and build a space station there, I wouldn't have to wait the mission to trigger. I could go now and get money from it.