Declining contracts in 1.0.5 career mode now costs you rep?

[Stoney3K]

More seriously though, I think the idea here is to reflect that each of the contracts SHOULD be doable and that if you can't or won't do them then that reflects poorly on your reputation. It also encourages players to try completing contracts they might have otherwise just ignored.

I don't think "avoiding punishment" is a good way of making dull, grinding gameplay more rewarding.

IMO, the contracts should be more varied and more science-oriented, with (possibly special) parts that get unlocked for the contract when you need them. For example, you can't do an orbital survey in the "regular" fashion but you may be able to do it on a contract, unlocking the survey scanner when you have accepted a contract that needs it.

This would also allow unmanned probes and rockets early on in the game with parts that are valid for a single contract only.

[gchristopher]

So instead of declining contract you can now just time warp to the next sunrise and get new contracts?

The only way to solve the slot machine problem is to make interesting missions that the player wants to accept.

Penalizing the player for dismissing uninteresting missions is bad game design. The player has no influence on what missions he gets. We had enough impossible missions like launch clamps in flight over the Mün to know that some missions are outright impossible. No matter what, no player should feel forced to accept contracts he doesn't like or to time warp until new contracts become available.

And I don't accept the "you can turn it off" answer. You can turn off gravity too, but that's not how the game should be played under normal circumstances.

Exactly right! I'm glad the reputation penalty can be disabled, but it shouldn't be enabled by default at all!

A contract system is very hard to design and the results aren't as good as they might someday be. Penalizing the player for working around that limitation is a poor design decision.

I'm not remotely moved by arguments centered around "realism" in contract offerings and reputation. Actual space industry contract negotiation concerns shouldn't be a consideration for game design, except as fodder for parody. That would be a great attitude for revising the contract system! "Real world contracts are not remotely fun, so let's make a fun, silly, Kerbal-ized system where the main relation to reality is comical."

Thankfully, it's a minor and easily avoided problem. At least the rest of the 1.0.5 changes look pretty cool!

[Just Jim]

I actually like the idea, and think it's somewhat realistic to real life. You get approached by a company time and time again with a contract offer, and you constantly turn them down, eventually they're gonna take their business elsewhere, and your reputation is gonna a hit.

Life isn't fair, and now neither is mission control.... and I think its awesome!

[Stoney3K]

I actually like the idea, and think it's somewhat realistic to real life. You get approached by a company time and time again with a contract offer, and you constantly turn them down, eventually they're gonna take their business elsewhere, and your reputation with that company is gonna a hit.

Corrected for inflation, if we would have a per-agency reputation database, I would be more into that. It's like saying to agency X: "Stop sending me those bloody tourists! They're not going to space on our vessels!" which would give the user more influence in *what* contracts are offered in the future.

A bad rep on a company that only offers tourist contracts means that company will stop offering contracts. Meanwhile, a good rep on a company means that more challenging contracts will be offered by *that* particular company, but not by another. You would need to earn your reputation on a per-agency basis.

[Wesreidau]

I don't mind it. If you're running a satellite company, and you go up to SpaceX and ask them to launch your comms sat in a geosync orbit, and they go "meh, no", what do you do? You go somewhere else, the ESA or Russia or something. The next satellite you need launched, you're a little less likely to ask SpaceX and a little more likely to go with the other company who launched you. And if you just go through telling every job offer no, people will thing you're not interested in the offers at all. So yes, there is a reputation hit for declining a job offer.

Now, if SpaceX says, "we're floating the idea but we aren't able to sign for this launch yet", IE tabling the proposal, your agents will put their offers out elsewhere. In a couple days the ESA accepts and your SpaceX offer expires. Sorry SpaceX, too slow. Its not the same as a flat "No thanks". I assume Mort over in the admin building is a slick enough negotiator to prevent that from being taken poorly. He has days to make up an excuse, after all.

[CreepyB4by]

I have seen several posts that claim that this change makes the game more realistic, but I don't think declining a job would decline your reputation in real life. Especially if it's a job that most people would decline. If you accept the job and fail, then it makes sense that the rep goes down, but to decline an offer? That sounds pretty stupid to me, tbh. If Nasa was approached by 100 countries or companies that all wanted moon rocks and they said no, it would not impact their reputation at all.

That's ok, tho, most games take a back seat to logic, I can get used to it, but with the other problems I've begun to see in the game, it's quickly diminishing its own replay value with me. I am anxious to see how this works out on Xbox, for console players, I can guarantee that the Multiple vehicles moving/huge Ships launching lag problems won't fly with the broken tutorial. It'll be rejected harder than the new Fantastic Four movie. Some console players don't own a computer and they wouldn't look up Scott Manley on Youtube even if they did. Scott Manley's near-celebrity status in this game's SOI is a testament to just how non-functioning the tutorial is. If it was working, no one would know his name. Basically, what I'm saying is, I don't like it, but it seems like it's par for the course around here.

[ajburges]

I've always liked the idea of the player submitting mission proposals and the game assigning appropriate rewards. Might me a good end-game way of doing contracts.

This. My most egregious contract cycling had always been to get contracts tangentially related to a planned mission (bases for miners, stations for stations/mother ships, polar sats for surveys). I'm putting something there anyway and a RNG is the only reason nobody wants it.

I would also like some negotiability on contracts. Make adjustments not favor the player, but allow us some bounds to play with the particulars. Who needs a base on Eve for 20 Kerbals or a super-Munar, polar satilite?

[Kerbart]

I would also like some negotiability on contracts. Make adjustments not favor the player, but allow us some bounds to play with the particulars. Who needs a base on Eve for 20 Kerbals or a super-Munar, polar satilite?

Why limit yourself to one base? Why not fifteen, or twenty? But we'll penalize you for declining those!

[Alshain]

This is just a stupid change, so I'm penalized if I don't want to do ISRU contracts or base building contracts?

Way screw up career mode Squad. There was a time when this game was about doing what you wanted to do. I'm glad I can turn it off but it should be defaulted off for everything except grind mode.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Alshain

[Legendary Emu]

"Oh, I see you are a newly founded space agency that just recently landed a small probe on the moon. Tell me, can you build me a space station holding 11 kerbals and 4000 units of fuel? And while you are at it, can you pop by Duna and rescue some kerbal?"

[Renegrade]

I'm glad I can turn it off but it should be defaulted off for everything except grind mode.

Yeah, this seems like it should have been on only if you pick higher difficulty levels (and custom games of course). Doubly so since the current contracts (although improved from before) are still like 20% "oooh" and 80% "oh HECK no!". If there were more meaningful, interesting contracts I'd not be so concerned.

(I like some of the new contracts that have come up since I started my 1.0.5 save, but the old contracts are still littering the list with their awfulness)

[Alshain]

Yeah, this seems like it should have been on only if you pick higher difficulty levels (and custom games of course). Doubly so since the current contracts (although improved from before) are still like 20% "oooh" and 80% "oh HECK no!". If there were more meaningful, interesting contracts I'd not be so concerned.

(I like some of the new contracts that have come up since I started my 1.0.5 save, but the old contracts are still littering the list with their awfulness)

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.

[oglommi]

Well this explains why I now have 0 rep on my new career - I had cycled through a bunch of contracts last night before logging off and never noticed the penalty.

This is not a good solution to the "slot machine" problem, especially not for a normal mode career. If you consider how many possible variations of contracts can pop up now along with how few are actually available at any given moment, it is entirely to be expected that we would want to cycle through the list to find something different. To apply a penalty just doesn't make any sense - maybe in one of the harder game modes, but definitely not in a normal career.

Looks like I need to go tweak my persistence file and maybe use the debug menu to add back in some rep.

Yes, this rep penalty seems like a horrible idea, the career game is very grindy as is. Adding rep penalty for skipping timeconsuming stupid contracts makes career mode abhorrent.

[Pecan]

...I have been one of the biggest supporters of career mode since it was introduced ...

Just like the tech tree, the contract system is a good idea with a very poor implementation. Adding in ridiculous constraints like this aren't making it better.

Well indeed; if you want sanity, look elsewhere. *Shuffles aside* Welcome to the sandbox, all you need is imagination here.

Can I interest you in a Dres timeshare?

[WinkAllKerb'']

Yes, this rep penalty seems like a horrible idea, the career game is very grindy as is. Adding rep penalty for skipping timeconsuming stupid contracts makes career mode abhorrent.

let's now have a talk about how career is in the real world, not grindy at all, no rep penalty at all, no stupid contract at all.

nope really i don't get it, career mode not abhorrent at all *shrug*

[panzer1b]

I think its realistic and keeps people from abusing the decline spam until they get exactly what they want tactic.

That said, it should only kick in after say 3 or so successive declines in a row. that would keep people from cycling until they get contract they want, and itll still let people decline some of the less fun and or not their style contracts without penalty.

Myself though, i see no need for contracts, one, there are no military focused ones, two, career in general isnt military focused as well, blowing up capital ships costs alot of money, and there is no such thing as different factions implemented yet, so i cant really do funds tracking for different groups. That, and i have enough of an imagination that i dont need to be guided through the game or anything like that. If i want to do a contract, whats stopping me from doing exactly teh same thing in a sandbox save? If i want to land on duna, i can go land on duna in sandbox, if i want to place a satelite in some spot, i can do that in sandbox at the time and place of my choosing. So yeah, for those of us that either have alot of imagination and can make up our own goals, or come from the days before science unlocks even existed, there is no point to career.

[FancyMouse]

I suddenly remember there's mod like Rejector - and that will literally become rep black hole:)

[cantab]

Well I've quit career mode because I realised I was doing early stuff a lot, but my last career I never declined contracts. Seeing people spam that X button until they got what they want just looked blatantly exploity. If I really didn't like any of the contracts I'd timewarp through a few days. That has meaningful consequences - transfer windows might be missed, missions en route might arrive and need attention, and I was using TAC Life Support too.

I think Squad have done the right thing making decline not free. And I'd say that if you're spending your time hitting that X button until a contract comes up that's exactly what you want, consider playing Science or Sandbox instead and just doing exactly what you want.

[Norpo]

My real problem with it is that rejecting contracts is strictly a quality of life feature, 99% of the time. If you just wait ~7 days then contracts disappear and get replaced with different ones, so instead of rejecting contracts, you can just wait a little while with time warp. And since time doesn't matter...

I really want to see more time based features in stock Career mode, but it seems like the devs are just dipping their toes in the water of time-based mechanics, which doesn't really work if waiting gives you advantages but it's not really a commodity in any real sense, aside from transfer windows. See: the science lab giving you science, and now this. If waiting and doing nothing meant something it would matter, but as it stands you can just wait, and as long as you don't wait decades then contract failure by deadline almost never happens. If time based mechanics just give you stuff as opposed to taking them away as well, then you can just hit the magic time warp button, and get free science, or get new contracts for free.

The two schools of thought seem to be "I want more time based features, NASA doesn't do one mission at a time" and "I don't want time to matter, I just want to do one mission at a time, juggling 10 missions at once isn't my idea of fun", and it seems like the devs are trying to please both groups, which almost never works out.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

EDIT: Also, mods prove that time based mechanics CAN work, Life Support mods, Kerbal Construction Time, to an extent SanSAT, and the like all add time based mechanics, and when used together they create a synergy, which really improves(YMMV) the game. Half-doing time based mechanics just makes it pointless most of the time.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Norpo
I'm Norpo, and i'm here at Editors Anonymous because EDIT: fixed typo

[cyberpawn]

hey guys i have a question? what if i wait till contract expire? did i get -rep?

edit: without accepting it..

[T.C.]

Real question here: How does declining contracts benefit the player in any way? I think I'm unfamiliar with the game mechanic being discussed in this thread.

Is everyone suggesting that if I decline a contract, I will get a fresh new offer faster than I would have if I had ignored the contract?

-TC

[Norpo]

hey guys i have a question? what if i wait till contract expire? did i get -rep?

I think if you just let a contract expire then you don't lose rep.

[cyberpawn]

I think if you just let a contract expire then you don't lose rep.

aw yeah.. nice to know my rep is safe. thank you for answering my question sir..

[FancyMouse]

Real question here: How does declining contracts benefit the player in any way? I think I'm unfamiliar with the game mechanic being discussed in this thread.

Is everyone suggesting that if I decline a contract, I will get a fresh new offer faster than I would have if I had ignored the contract?

-TC

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).

[WinkAllKerb'']

Real question here: How does declining contracts benefit the player in any way? I think I'm unfamiliar with the game mechanic being discussed in this thread.

Is everyone suggesting that if I decline a contract, I will get a fresh new offer faster than I would have if I had ignored the contract?

-TC

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.

I just started a custom (almost normal but minor pref harder setting thing), offered contract are much much more coherent, i usually fill my 7 slot @ rank 2 and as said clean them in one or two launch.

Penalty are on @ default value but i don't really even feel them. so ... even thinking about upping them ...

but clearly if someone is spamming the x button, it should either tweak it's career accordingly or switch to 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 changes, 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 in the 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 on the subject)

Edited November 12, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''
dislexia typographia 'cclicence'