Declining contracts in 1.0.5 career mode now costs you rep?

[T.C.]

More importantly, the type of contract you deny may not be the same type of contract that appears the next. So you can easily cherry pick, say 4 rescue missions, or Kerbin station+Sun station+other planet station, and do them in a batch, while without declining it will be hard to do (either luck or need a long game time).

for example you can decline only a few to get the same kind of contract and doing them in a single or two mission/launch row.

but clearly if someone is spamming the x button' date=' better to go science or sandboxmode + the change made to the contract system are overall smooth and on the good way compared how too it was 1.0x , .9x etc.

Dev related and returns i tend to find that approach much more pertinent than bigger change, the contracts and sciences system have been sources of polemic since they were introduced with tons and tons of arguing threads. Just check the history about the subject the in suggestions sub forum (not even speaking of other sub forum) mostly say it all

(be warned that if you go have a look there you might not play ksp today so much there is to read there)[/quote']

Thank you for the explanations.

-TC

[Kobymaru]

I really like this feature. As the Patch notes said, it is there to prevent "Slot Machine abuse".

About not accepting "stupid" contracts: Then just timewarp or go do something else. There is always stuff you can do. Most proposals expire in a few days.

About IRL: First, you DO take a rep hit if you decline things, as many have noted. Second: If you have a company, do you think there is an unlimited supply of contracts for you, just waiting for you to pick them? Do you think you can just send away customers until you can finally pick one that you like? No, that's not realistic.

About better contract types:

Well, you're kinda right, actually. More and better contract types would be a good solution, but you guys should get real for a second. You have great ideas, and imply that SQUAD should have done everything long ago. But here's the thing: it's not the whole of Squad that works on contracts, it's one dude: Arsonide. And he started out as a modder and does his best to create good contracts - but he's only human with a limited time he can dedicate to programming. So while your ideas might be good, it will probably take a long time to implement them.

Conversely, I think what we have now is a lot, *a lot* better than nothing.

Either way, there will still be contracts that some people do like, and some people don't like. The case of unwanted contracts still needs to be handled.

tl;dr: I disagree with OP. I think the rep hit is a good idea.

[Stoney3K]

Here's how I think the contract system could be improved:

* Low importance contracts should not take a serious (global) rep hit unless you spam the decline button on every single one of them. This way, players can ditch the super-boring grind contracts that only require you to shove tourists around or test parts you've already used a million times.

* Conversely, declining high importance contracts (like the first "Orbit Kerbin!") would mean the reputation penalty is doubled or even tripled. This would make the player think twice about declining three-star contracts, even if they may not seem particularly challenging at the time.

* Contracts that require a goal that the player has already accomplished (e.g. reaching first orbit, or testing a part that is already unlocked) would expire immediately.

* Additionally, each agency or contract category should have its own, local, reputation which would indicate the desirability of that agency to offer a new contract to the player. For example, if you reject all contracts from StrutCo, it would not impact the contracts offered by all other agencies, and if you decline "Test Part" or "Ferry Tourist" objective, it would affect those categories, but not any other.

* The probability of a contract of category X and agency Y being offered is ultimately determined by a sum of (Global Reputation * Agency Reputation * Category Reputation), which will reach an equilibrium if the player keeps rejecting contracts they don't want.

In the long run, that means that contracts the player does not want will stop showing up, and the contracts the player *does* want get accepted and completed, which means more and more of those contracts will keep showing up, offering more challenge for the player and a more interesting game without having to slot-machine the contract system.

[Renegrade]

I wouldn't be so concerned if only the default limit wasn't 10 blasted contracts. If you are going to do this, give us a good range to choose from, at least 25 at a time.... BY DEFAULT.

Oh yeah - that's a good point. That would help too (I always chuckle about the "unlimited" contracts the top level building can have)..

[Birdco_Space]

I always considered that declining a contract basically told the proposer that their request as stupid, while just waiting for the offer to expire was just a "I don't have the resources or time for this. The first should definitely cause a rep hit

I'm fine with the Decline penalty, though I would like to see more specific consequences, like companies not offering similar contracts any more, or just stop offering contacts. This, at the cost of some Rep, could cause your list to be tailored to things you like to do.

I don't mind timewarping to new contract options (my self imposed 10 Kerbin days between rocket launched means a lot of time to pass to get new contracts)

[Muskrat]

The big problem wit the rep penalty is the game doesn't tell you about it, AFAIK.

So, here's an alternative, and something someone could possibly mod:

Instead of a rep hit, add a time delay for new contracts to appear when they are declined (or expire for that matter). Yes, time isn't really a significant resource in this game, but it means you would have to wait around for new contracts to appear, preventing the "slot machine" aspect to a degree.

I always thought it was weird that the second you declined a contract, another one was immediately there to fill the void.

However, as far as this mechanic goes, I always decline contracts because they weren't interesting, or fun. There's only so many Kerbals I want to rescue from orbit. Kerbin Survey missions are time consuming and boring (unless they can be done from orbit, and even then). If I want to go to Minmus, I'm going to seek out LKO and Minmus contracts I can try to complete in 1 mission (which makes some interesting rocket builds). I'm not going to be accepting a bunch of Mun missions (been there done that, usually), although a LKO, Mun, Minmus mission can be fun, and good prep for interplanetary missions.

Supposedly they've improved the contract system so it's more logical, we'll see how it goes, but unless the progression is significantly better than 1.0.4 I'm still doubtful the rep penalty will make the game more fun, instead of just more grindy. I'd like to see career mode get more of a campaign feel, with set contracts (like the original "launch first...", "get out of atmo...", "orbit kerbin.." contracts. Contracts that set up broad goals, that always appear in progression, along with a scattering of misc contracts associated with that goal, and also with misc contracts in general. Then I think the rep system would make more sense.

[Varsi]

I've always been declining tourist and Kerbin survey contracts. Might have to wait them off now.

I'd rather offer tourists tours than get demands from them. It's not like I go to the local aviation company for a flight (I guess I could but that might cost a bit more than a pre-planned flight).

Contract system does definitely need a lot more work. I'm sure some mod maker genius will come up with something we'll really like.

[Joonatan1998]

I think the rep hit is OK, but it also should reduce the probability of the type of contract refused in the future.

If you refuse to build an station on low jool orbit with 5000 units of fuel it would reduce future contracts like that.

You would get less contracts for jool, and less station contracts.

If you refuse to mine ore on Eve and land it on the sun it would give you less Eve mining and sun landing contracts.

[Sobriquet]

Yet another wrong headed decision.

[Chakat Firepaw]

I always considered that declining a contract basically told the proposer that their request as stupid, while just waiting for the offer to expire was just a "I don't have the resources or time for this. The first should definitely cause a rep hit

My thinking adds your agency actively going out and trying to convince people to do things. The reputation hit represents your 'spending' your reputation to convince a company that they really need a prototype zero-g manufacturing station.

[KerbMav]

The big problem wit the rep penalty is the game doesn't tell you about it, AFAIK.

It does, it says Completion +x, Failure -y, Decline -z under the description.

[Muskrat]

It does, it says Completion +x, Failure -y, Decline -z under the description.

Ah, I missed that. I was looking for something near the decline button, like a tool tip.

[rcp27]

In the real world contracts aren't asking you to put launch clamps on the sun.

I still think that "carry tourist X on a suborbital flight" or "Test part XYZ that I have already unlocked on some impossible altitude and speed" should be reviewed. They make the career system boring and promote the slot-machine use.

Most of the issues with part testing contracts have been fixed, I haven't seen a part testing contract requiring absurd testing conditions for a long time.

From 1.0.5 release notes:

Part Test contract generation logic has been modified. Each part now has a much more specific set of constraints before it generates, to give it much more consistent and realistic altitudes, speeds, and envelopes.

From 1.0 release notes:

Part Test contracts now request much saner flight parameters.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Yet another wrong headed decision.

not sure if someone mentionned that yet, it's a tickable 100% customizable option, oh nvd then go drama about it go ... seriously ...

i have some chips, pop corns, cola and beer also, anyone ?

[FlyingPete]

All the while there are nonsense contracts (part testing at some obscure altitude/speed combination that barely pays anything etc) and cases of declining a contract only to have a near-identical one pop up in its place, there will be some slot-machine element to the contracts system. I'd like to see some form of 'ignore all contracts of this type' button available. For example, if you're a bus company, you don't have people asking you to ship oil across the atlantic or build an office block. At the moment, my career game is swamped with 'go take the temperature at some point on the Mun' or 'send four tourists somewhere' when I'm more interested in exploring and operating around Duna and Eve.

Penalising the player for declining contracts (that either make no sense, don't pay well enough, or are just not interesting) detracts from the mechanics of career mode. I can't remember when I last saw a 'build a space station' contract. I like the career mode elements of training crews and managing the cost of missions, but grinding out endless sight-seeing missions with mediocre pay is just a chore.

What I'd like to see is fewer commercial contracts, and more 'Kerbin Government' contracts. Commercial contracts would pay the usual lump sum, but successfully completing the government missions would increase your daily funding. That way, you could run your space program with government funding, supplemented by commercial income.

[Polstar]

Most of the issues with part testing contracts have been fixed, I haven't seen a part testing contract requiring absurd testing conditions for a long time.

From 1.0.5 release notes:

Part Test contract generation logic has been modified. Each part now has a much more specific set of constraints before it generates, to give it much more consistent and realistic altitudes, speeds, and envelopes.

From 1.0 release notes:

Part Test contracts now request much saner flight parameters.

I've got one to test the 3.75m fairing in a sub orbital trajectory over Duna between 220,000m to 230,000. I can understand some parts needing testing in certain environments but these should be ground tests or in space around Kerbin.

The contract logic is better but still a bit flawed, when you get a 'perform flyby of Duna' followed by 'build outpost on Ike'. Surley it should offer flyby > explore > plant flag > station / outpost.

[Endersmens]

WHAT?!

This is outrageous! Someone call Linus! Shut down all current missions! STOP DECLINING CONTRACTS!

But seriously, this is a surprise to me. If you're going to do this to us, at least let us prune what kind of contracts we do. It's already annoying to have to decline 5 tourist contracts in a row, but now penalizing me for it? That's a little..... iffy.

[FlyingPete]

But seriously, this is a surprise to me. If you're going to do this to us, at least let us prune what kind of contracts we do. It's already annoying to have to decline 5 tourist contracts in a row, but now penalizing me for it? That's a little..... iffy.

I agree. I personally don't want to have to run 'Jeb Kerman's magical mystery tours' just to be able to play what is effectively the game. KSP has always been about exploring the solar system, and I like the challenge of having to manage mission costs etc, but let us go exploring without being penalised for not doing yet another tourist contract or test some random part.

[fourfa]

What exactly happens if you lose reputation? I've been playing for almost 500 hours, tons of fun, but never once paid attention to my reputation score. Just opens up some obscure admin strategies? Does anyone actually use those?

[fanelli]

You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. First off, it's -1 reputation hit to decline a contract. This is GREAT, cause the system was highly abused to where we all were playing it like roulette, getting 3-5 contracts in a row that we could knock out with 1 launch.

Seriously, raise your hand if you did not have an excess of money and reputation in career.

Now realize this tiny nerf to the contract system came with the biggest buff career mode has seen yet, you get paid bonus rep/science/money for world firsts; and they got a world first for EVERYTHING, on practically EVERY PLANET.

You now have a strategy where you can reduce contracts worth, to get even higher bonuses for those world firsts.

So far this new change has allowed me to spend less time trying to hunt contracts I want; to just selecting a few then doing WHAT I WANT; and still getting paid the same amount with the world first bonuses.

and if you want to cancel contracts go ahead; i have 250 on my new career and it took me just a couple hours to obtain. I could cancel 250 contracts now if I wanted too; and only be 0 out. The higher your reputation gets you gain a nerf to your gains, there was no real reason to have 900 points. Reputation isn't that important right now. So instead of theory crafting how terrible this decision was, actually play the game and realize it hardly affects you. Go ahead and decline away! most gains for reputation are way more for completing a contract that you won't have a problem having high reputation. And finally if it still matters, remember that strategy place that was never used? Well you can now buy reputation or trade science for it if your really worried.

Thanks KSP for the design decision. I now only take contracts I really want, cancel the insane, and spend more time focusing on what I want to do. And I still have excess money, reputation, and science coming in!

What exactly happens if you lose reputation? I've been playing for almost 500 hours, tons of fun, but never once paid attention to my reputation score. Just opens up some obscure admin strategies? Does anyone actually use those?

They allow you to get higher rated contracts too; but you really only need like 500; I don't think I've seen any benefit from above that amount. But someone else will have to chime in for some hard data.

Edited November 12, 2015 by fanelli

[Wesreidau]

Are people making green jelly smears on the launch pad so often that -1 reputation is going to break the camel's back? I'm seeing starting level contracts with +10 rep to complete. I can turn down nine contracts to find the one I like, unless I burn up my tourists on re-entry. The -1 isn't hard, it just removes exploitation of the decline-and-replace system.

[Stoney3K]

The -1 isn't hard, it just removes exploitation of the decline-and-replace system.

The point is that the decline-and-replace system is a stop-gap measure and it doesn't need to be there in the first place. It's only a result of a lot of unchallenging contracts being offered to the player.

Provide us with more interesting contracts and less grindy ones, and the contract system will stop being used as a slot machine, because we don't need to use it as a slot machine anymore.

Instilling a penalty for doing so will not remove the need for interesting gameplay.

[Franklin]

Are people making green jelly smears on the launch pad so often that -1 reputation is going to break the camel's back? I'm seeing starting level contracts with +10 rep to complete. I can turn down nine contracts to find the one I like, unless I burn up my tourists on re-entry. The -1 isn't hard, it just removes exploitation of the decline-and-replace system.

Exactly. -1 rep is such a tiny, meaningless amount it only serves to combat heavy exploitation of the function. People declining dozens of contracts in a row looking for something specific.

The exploit: If you have a satellite in orbit around Duna, for example, previous to 1.0.5 you could could decline every contract on the board over and over until some 'Collect Science In Orbit Around Duna' contract comes up. You're already in position for it, so you accept it and complete it immediately. The contract cost you nothing and you rake in the cash. It's a technical exploit but only one that can work if you're declining dozens of contracts in a row.

The new penalty not only makes contract farming more difficult, but the penalty makes it so less juicy contracts appear as your rep takes a slide.

- - - Updated - - -

And from a real-world business perspective it does make sense. If a third-party comes to you with a proposal and you decline working with them because it's 'not what you're looking for' they're going to hold it against you, and mention to peers that your agency passed them over. That -1 rep is a real-world implication of being choosy in business.

[Tourist]

I personally don't think its an issue (caveat: the way I play). I don't decline the contracts I don't want, I just don't accept them and they expire and are replaced... when your doing lots of time warping during interplanetary missions they expire frequently.

I thought the point was that it was meant to be a bit of a lucky dip, enticing you to undertake missions you would not ordinarily do... rather than reward you for missions you are already planning/already underway. The game already rewards you for doing your own thing, for example, exp for your kerbals, extra science/rep for doing things you haven't done before, like new orbits, returning from landing on new bodies etc.

Case in point. In my current career, I've landed on Duna, currently focused on Eve.... no real intention of returning to Duna. Had rescue contracts appear on and around Duna... I thought that sounded interesting, so suddenly I'm re-gearing for Duna missions again. That would not have happened If I was only fishing for Eve missions. All that would have happened is I would of done the mission I was already planning anyway.

But, of course I accept some of the missions they give you are not sane to attempt... that at least is a problem. Also, as I said, everybody plays their game. People have made good points about the limit on the number of contracts that appear.

[problemecium]

Wait, WHAT?!?!?

I must immediately fire up KSP and verify this! I really hope it isn't true, because that would indeed break Career Mode and does indeed sound stupid.

UPDATE: Confirmed! Also confirmed is the CFG fix, which I immediately applied. Admittedly the rep penalty was miniscule, so I probably would never have suffered for it, but meh.

Edited November 16, 2015 by parameciumkid