RTS-like contracts

[SyberSmoke]

English isn't my first langage either but there's no need to be overly defensive.

What you said (up to now, because yes I read) simply don't change what I wrote. By adding potentially limitless duration to a mission you risk depriving the players from the satisfaction of having achieved a token mission, no matter if he got the money/science. It is basic Game design and it trump reality.

Also I would have proposed an alternative anyway.

See this is very player dependent. As stated above this is a mod idea, not a core game idea. So a mission with additional objectives that are not needed to complete the mission could be something a group of players would be interested in. An added challenge really. Sure they may only get the satisfaction from only doing the main mission and feel a loss by missing the secondary objectives. But at the same time it is up to the player to accept that risk and if they do not accept it...they need not use the mod.

The Open-ended Mission proposal/rewording by Sybersmoke is... interesting. But it can fail on some points, docking allow for powerfully modular design which can be hard to track, leading to either potential Exploit or I imagine dead-end where the players can't get mission for new things because they are included or would be achieved by Extra optional sub-objective.

I do think Career's contract could be heavily refiltered, made intelligent, and ditch the cartooney fake-industry. But not everything would be better.

The idea was simple really as it would be a focused off shoot of the main mission goals. Really it is meant to reward people for doing things they will most likely do anyway. I mean really...you have a mission that says Do A and B in High Orbit, and C in Low orbit...are you really going to tell me you will not do A, B, and C in both? I know I do. So the idea was to take that additional research and reward it as being beyond the mission contract.

But another thought I can come up with off the top of my head could also be placing a probe in low orbit of planet. The player, while they are there, could rendezvous and collect the data from it. This can work for orbit and on the ground. Something like this can be dealt with as long as there is a certain amount of imagination and forethought.

Plus really...if people exploit it what does it matter? I mean this is a single player experience...you can play as you please in your own little sandbox world. Now I would be far more concerned when MP comes out...but bets are that MP would require mod parity on the part of the clients so...if the host is cool with it then what does our morality matter.

Edited July 16, 2015 by SyberSmoke

[Alshain]

See this is very player dependent. As stated above this is a mod idea, not a core game idea. So a mission with additional objectives that are not needed to complete the mission could be something a group of players would be interested in. An added challenge really. Sure they may only get the satisfaction from only doing the main mission and feel a loss by missing the secondary objectives. But at the same time it is up to the player to accept that risk and if they do not accept it...they need not use the mod.

It wasn't presented as a mod. If a mod is all you want, I could care less. This is the suggestion forum.

[Kegereneku]

-sniped for brievety-

To reword the problem : It is that while main-objectives won't disappear until accomplished, optional one would if you don't do them first (or change the while paradigm to a Vessel/Players-centric one where we decide to close a mission).

And so, if the sub-objective MUST be done while accomplishing the mission you are simply punishing forgetfulness (if it's just one more click) or ... as I said, depriving the player from a full success unless he plan the optional objective since the very start.

Your "A+B in high-orbit / C in low-orbit" example is calling for a (new) surface launch for C to be accomplished before A+B rather than moving to a satellite in High-orbit, then one in low-Orbit (assuming you can't use a Molniya orbit).

In RTS, optional objectives work because Mission are sequential and separate. You know you will not be able to wait until another mission stack-up over the objective to do everything at once (the very way you can abuse Station-contract right now)

In KSP, you can stack many missions and most require so long to do that you can achieve them with near anything. In result a sub-objective must either appear before you did anything here, or be limited to one/new spaceship (docking problem) ... or be a main objective in a separate mission.

To this add a problem of consistency : If you planned your 'sub-objective' to encourage a Slingshot around Duna while going to Jool, going to Jool directly and doing the Duna-scan through a probe already here defeat the logic in the Mission... unless you put severe limitation that can feel stupid.

Plus really...if people exploit it what does it matter?

Exploit are a sign a game is BROKEN, as if you let an easy pipe-bug that gave you infinite fuel or missions that give you free money in way not intended by the Developers.

The very principle of gameplay is that you cannot do certain things and must work within what you can do to accomplish the goals.

In short :

You are either doing it like KSP do it in stock, or it's a complete rewrite, not an optional mod.

[tater]

Missions would be self-limited in duration if the game included life support, and half-life for RTGs (mods do both these things).

Simple LS mods like Roverdude's USILS or Snacks! are not hard to deal with, and set hard time limits up to a point (more so when you use either mod with LS=0 killing kerbals, which I do with both). RTGs losing juice at least make distant missions time limited, though inner system probe missions with PVs will obviously not have this limitation. (then again, look at Opportunity still limping along).

[Grumman]

To reword the problem : It is that while main-objectives won't disappear until accomplished, optional one would if you don't do them first (or change the while paradigm to a Vessel/Players-centric one where we decide to close a mission).

And so, if the sub-objective MUST be done while accomplishing the mission you are simply punishing forgetfulness (if it's just one more click) or ... as I said, depriving the player from a full success unless he plan the optional objective since the very start.

Your "A+B in high-orbit / C in low-orbit" example is calling for a (new) surface launch for C to be accomplished before A+B rather than moving to a satellite in High-orbit, then one in low-Orbit (assuming you can't use a Molniya orbit).

In RTS, optional objectives work because Mission are sequential and separate. You know you will not be able to wait until another mission stack-up over the objective to do everything at once (the very way you can abuse Station-contract right now)

In KSP, you can stack many missions and most require so long to do that you can achieve them with near anything. In result a sub-objective must either appear before you did anything here, or be limited to one/new spaceship (docking problem) ... or be a main objective in a separate mission.

The sub-objective must appear before you do everything, not anything. A contract to land a base on the Mun has many steps, most of which are implicit and some of which are skippable:

1. Design a suitable craft.

2. Launch it.

3. Establish orbit.

4. Establish an intercept flight path to the Mun.

5. Establish orbit around the Mun.

6. Establish a sub-orbital flight path.

7. Land.

8. Wait ten seconds.

All you need to do is pick a point before step 7 as the point where the bonus objective is given. For example, at step 5 I might give the player a bonus objective to land in Zone B64 rather than just anywhere on the Mun. If the player skips step 5 and doesn't receive the bonus objective, it doesn't matter because it was only optional and the player doesn't know what they're missing.

[Kegereneku]

Grumman, to me you are only seeing this in a RTS-way where mission are sequential and can't stack.

Taking your example (Mun landing) let's imagine the following sub-objective : Put a satellite in orbit around the Mun.

- starting from 0, you can add/make a satellite to/of your design easily (unless the reward isn't worth it, making it no different from refusing a mission).

- If you already have a satellite in orbit, it's free money.

- If you forget to accomplish it FIRST (for example because the timing don't allow multitasking), you are being punished.

- If you somehow didn't care about this sub-obj, you are being sucked into doing it for the reward or doomed to know you'll miss something.

- Worse : since launching a satellite is a mission by itself. You could just scroll around contract and take one that pay MORE for a Satellite so you get paid 2 times.

Because the above make the distinction of sub-obj pointless, let's try one more optional : Add a New rover to the mission.

- starting from 0, it is only harder and again if it's not worth it you'll simply abandon it.

- You can't already have one since it mush be new, so no preparing infrastructure before the contract.

- Ideally the Contract/Mission mustn't be possible to validate accidentally in the wrong order. Else you are being punished for no reason again.

- Again, since the rover can be a mission by itself, you can hope to stack another one.

So following this logic why make a sub-objective at all ?

All this would do is making Objectives worth a full mission into something-lesser that can be failed if done in the wrong order.

Why not simply make those sub-objective a different mission to accept or refuse ? (It is the player's space program after all)

Meaning what's important is to make Mission-Control suggest this sort of contract at all rather than a tourists to the surface of the Sun or a Part-Test with absurdly precise (and stupid) requirement.

This is not because a feature exist in another game that it would work in another one.

Missions would be self-limited in duration if the game included life support, and half-life for RTGs (mods do both these things).

I see what you mean but I disagree with it being a solution, you can't use RTGs duration or Life-support to (really) prevent milking satellite and (empty) station free-money. Also you forget Solar-satellite. (Honestly I think you are just trying to sell your wishlist, you know there is better solution)

We would be better taking Private-satellite out of our control, or Space-station requiring to be mostly manned during the validation.