1.0.5+: Career: Declining contracts costs reputation; negative reputation costs funds

[manaiaK]

Since 1.0.5 will (we hope!) fix the problem of getting nonsensical contracts, e.g. "test Mammoth engine on escape trajectory out of Eeloo", "test LT-05 landing gear in orbit of Minmus" -- you know the ones. Since 1.0.5 will fix that problem, the need to repeatedly decline absurd contracts ("spam-decline") should be reduced.

I think it would add something to the career mode game if spam-declining contracts had a cost. Declining contracts should cause a reputation hit--you get known to the contractors as a "difficult" provider--that should increase as you repeatedly decline contracts.

My first thought was a Fibonacci sequence increase in the penalty: declining one or two doesn't cost very much, but decline five or more in a row, and it starts to hurt a lot. (Each contract you accept would move you back a step in the sequence.)

Also, once your reputation goes negative, part suppliers should be reluctant to deal with you, and charge you extra. Again this could be based on the extent to which your reputation is negative.

Thoughts?

[Guest]

Thoughts?

It unfairly punishes people who want to play the game in their own way, making cash doing things they want to do. It doesn't address time-warping removing contracts. It doesn't address current missions or what the player is concentrating on (e.g. if the player is "colonizing" Laythe or Duna, or mining Moho, or whatever). It doesn't address the limited amount of contracts that a player has access to. I doesn't address contracts that don't conform to the player's current goals. In short, it is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by turning the game into a tedious exercise of doing things you may not want to be doing and punishes the player for setting their own goals. If you prefer to do every contract then do every contract; the game already allows you to play in that manner.

[manaiaK]

Fair enough.

[Alshain]

Yeah, I don't build surface bases or do anything involving ISRU. Surface bases are annoying without an appropriate assembly method, and stock ISRU just sucks in general. Not being able to remove those contracts wouldn't force me to do them, it would force me to play sandbox because I won't. (especially the ISRU which seem to pop up and a higher than normal rate) It would basically ruin my game, and I would quit KSP.

[Joonatan1998]

I think some cost to spam declining would be nice, but it would have to be very small.

[Guest]

I think some cost to spam declining would be nice, but it would have to be very small.

There already is a cost: spam declining is hampered by the laggy interface. It is much easier to either edit the contracts text file and allow the player 50+ available contracts or to use the debug/cheat menu to decline contracts because it doesn't suffer from the UI lag.

[mattinoz]

In the real world declining contracts may increase your reputation.

Happy for it to stay neutral in KSP.

Would prefer they make time frames for contracts shorter or two staged with say a rep bonus if completed before a certain date.