[Released] Strategia

[maculator]

So I was decluttering my GameData and thought "can I safly delete the Patch folder under Contract Packs Kerbin Spacestation?" so I looked up this "Strategia" thing that was inside.

Why didn't I see this before? I'll keep a cloe eye on this, looks really promissing!

[nightingale]

1 hour ago, maculator said:

So I was decluttering my GameData and thought "can I safly delete the Patch folder under Contract Packs Kerbin Spacestation?" so I looked up this "Strategia" thing that was inside.

Why didn't I see this before? I'll keep a cloe eye on this, looks really promissing!

Because we're hiding out in Add-On Development.

As soon as I can get some time to do the icons, notification bugfixes and enhancements we'll be ready to go.  I haven't gotten too much balance feedback (a little bit from smjjames), so for those that have played around it, let me know what you think.  What strategies aren't worth picking?  Which ones are too good and you'd pick them every game?

[nightingale]

Hey @smjjames, I haven't been able to reproduce the notification issues - can you send me a KSP.log from an instance where you've had it flip on/off incorrectly?

[smjjames]

12 minutes ago, nightingale said:

Hey @smjjames, I haven't been able to reproduce the notification issues - can you send me a KSP.log from an instance where you've had it flip on/off incorrectly?

Are you launching from VAB or from the KSC screen? Because it reproduces when launching from VAB.

Anyway, heres both that and output log: http://sta.sh/07vkphob3vg

[nightingale]

Got it, this should work:

Strategia 0.2.1

• Fixed issue with various crewed/uncrewed strategies flipping from available/unavailable according to the notification (thanks smjjames).

[Norcalplanner]

Looks very interesting! I'm going to start a new career with this and let you know it goes.

[Gaultesian]

I have been using this mod for about 2 weeks now, and I love it.  Keep in mind, I have not updated the mod when new iterations have been implemented, so my experiences may be obsolete.

I am using strategia through a long-haul game, in which I can see how it guides me through the different options.  All seems to work well with my version (i am not sure which one I have now, I am at work writing this), but needless to say that it has worked quite well so far.

The only thing I did was scale up the timeframes.  I am working on a 6.4k solar system, so times were too tight for me.  Other than amping up the time frames, all is kept 'as is'.

The only issue I had at this time was a requirement on sending probes to different planets.  That was really challenging, as I developed 4 probes that would land on Moho in 3 different biomes (I built 4, in case one died).  Once I completed that (and it was woot! from my mission control, er, my desktop), I was going to opt for another one (this time EVE).

Seems I have several satellites on a permanent orbit around the sun, but the requirements tell me that one of them is enroute to Eve.  Also, it said I did not complete the 'send astronauts to the mun'.  I had done that mission several times, but I had 3 currently on the Mun as a permanent base.  So I evacuated the kerbins on Mun, and that requirement was lifted in my favour, but as of now, the 'enroute to Eve' requirement is still in red.

Other than that glitch, everything else has been fun so far:  this mod guides me to the moons and planets on both manned and unmanned missions, and it gives the career mode a greater, cohesive sense of purpose and accomplishment, rather than just straight rep, science and funds boost.

My question:  can I upgrade to the latest beta version, without killing my savegame?  If not, I will continue to fly this game until I get to Eeloo, and report any issues (by that time, they may all be obsolete...Nightingale has been very prolific on the updates!).

Cheers.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Gaultesian

[nightingale]

2 hours ago, Gaultesian said:

I have been using this mod for about 2 weeks now, and I love it.  Keep in mind, I have not updated the mod when new iterations have been implemented, so my experiences may be obsolete.

I am using strategia through a long-haul game, in which I can see how it guides me through the different options.  All seems to work well with my version (i am not sure which one I have now, I am at work writing this), but needless to say that it has worked quite well so far.

The only thing I did was scale up the timeframes.  I am working on a 6.4k solar system, so times were too tight for me.  Other than amping up the time frames, all is kept 'as is'.

That's a really tricky one...  I don't want to remove the time frames completely, but there's lots of factors like those that make the timeframes tricky...

2 hours ago, Gaultesian said:

The only issue I had at this time was a requirement on sending probes to different planets.  That was really challenging, as I developed 4 probes that would land on Moho in 3 different biomes (I built 4, in case one died).  Once I completed that (and it was woot! from my mission control, er, my desktop), I was going to opt for another one (this time EVE).

That doesn't sound like an issue - it sounds like it challenged you to push your boundaries, which is a great success!

2 hours ago, Gaultesian said:

Seems I have several satellites on a permanent orbit around the sun, but the requirements tell me that one of them is enroute to Eve.  Also, it said I did not complete the 'send astronauts to the mun'.  I had done that mission several times, but I had 3 currently on the Mun as a permanent base.  So I evacuated the kerbins on Mun, and that requirement was lifted in my favour, but as of now, the 'enroute to Eve' requirement is still in red.

Could be an issue, or could be that I need to drop the threshold a little bit.  Can you send me the ORBIT node for that craft from your save (oh, and the current time at the top of the save)?  If you're not sure how to do that, just send me the whole save and tell me the name of the vessel.  Actually, see below first - I remember there were some issues related to that.

2 hours ago, Gaultesian said:

Other than that glitch, everything else has been fun so far:  this mod guides me to the moons and planets on both manned and unmanned missions, and it gives the career mode a greater, cohesive sense of purpose and accomplishment, rather than just straight rep, science and funds boost.

My question:  can I upgrade to the latest beta version, without killing my savegame?  If not, I will continue to fly this game until I get to Eeloo, and report any issues (by that time, they may all be obsolete...Nightingale has been very prolific on the updates!).

Yeah, I put the warning in there because I wasn't sure if I was going to make potentially breaking changes (and wanted to keep that option open to myself).  So far though, all versions have been backwards compatible.  So you should be safe to upgrade to the latest one.

Thanks for the feedback so far!  What strategies other than the "mission" style ones have you tried?  Did you find any of them too powerful?  Too lacklustre?

[Gaultesian]

Quote

The only issue I had at this time was a requirement on sending probes to different planets.  

I should have rephrased that one...the issue was the change between regular kebin solar system and 6.4k solar system (one would need a very fast probe to get there in time in 6.4k mode).  I LOVED the challenge, and it made the whole game feel fresh again .

 

I will see what saves and logs I have on my computer (I am at work now).

 

As for the modification I made (for the time requirements), I just customized it for my own purposes, and it is in no way a critique of Strategia.  I just modified it (properly, I hope) to meet the requirements of the 6.4k mod for my career game.

 

1 hour ago, nightingale said:

Yeah, I put the warning in there because I wasn't sure if I was going to make potentially breaking changes (and wanted to keep that option open to myself).  So far though, all versions have been backwards compatible.  So you should be safe to upgrade to the latest one.

Good point, and yay! I can upgrade.  Will do so tonight.

1 hour ago, nightingale said:

Thanks for the feedback so far!  What strategies other than the "mission" style ones have you tried?  Did you find any of them too powerful?  Too lacklustre?

Hmmm...until Strategia came along, I rarely used any of the strategies, unless I was really hard pressed for cash.  I found the lacklustre to the extreme.  I have currently used the training program for the kerbals, and although it may seem to be op'ed, it actually reduces the amount of training new recruits have to do (once Bob, Jeb, Vall and Bill have progressed past lvl 2 and beyond), so there is less micromanaging of pilots to get their skills up to speed (IMO).  Getting my pilots up to lvl 2 and 3 means I can send them to space stations and moon/planet bases without sending useless lvl 0 astronauts there, and getting next to nothing for science back in return (not to mention engineering skills, if you are using such things as KAS, KIS, and some of the mods that depend on engineering and science skills to improve output of given devices such as MKS/OKS).

I started out with the missions to Mun and then Minmus (probes and manned missions).  I have not done any impactor programs yet, but I will probably in the future (now it will encourage me to use the impactor mod out there....I enjoy your sneak way of gettting us to do more science!).

Cheers.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Gaultesian

[Norcalplanner]

So I gave this a whirl over the weekend.  The idea has a lot of promise, but there's still plenty of room for improvement.  Here are my quasi-organized thoughts on the matter.

1. Overall concept: Very good.  I love the idea of being able to focus on a specific area for your space program, whether it's exploration, contracts, or what have you.

2. Clarity: Needs some work. Examples: Like many an experienced KSPer, my first foray out of LKO was a manned mission to Minmus, since it's easier than the Mun and probe cores aren't unlocked yet.  I chose the Minmus program and enjoyed my enhanced rewards (at the cost of some reduced rewards for things I was doing at the same time on Kerbin itself).  Unfortunately, it wasn't clear at the time I chose that focus that it would preclude me from doing the other three Mun and Minmus programs, which then became permanently locked out.  Some warning would be nice, or possibly rejiggering it so that Mun and Minmus don't cross-preclude each other.  Other strategies also appear incompatible, such as "To Boldly Go" and "Free Ice Cream", but this isn't clear in the in-game documentation or screen graphics.

3. Upgrades: Couldn't figure it out.  I had chosen "To Boldly Go I" and it wouldn't let me choose "To Boldly Go II".  Do I have to cancel the first before starting the second?  If so, how does it figure out the discount for upgrading?  An "upgrade" button or something that holds your hand a little bit more would be helpful.

4. Suggestions: This biggest drawback seemed to be when running an actual space program, using KAC and having multiple missions on the way at the same time to different destinations.  To help, you might consider making some vaguer, weaker strategies, such as "Kerbin's Moons" which would let you run multiple manned and unmanned missions to the Mun and Minmus simultaneously at a reduced benefit level.  Similarly, a weaker strategy for "Kerbin's Neighbors" would allow simultaneous missions to Eve and Duna, while "Far Out, Man" would allow simultaneous missions to Moho, Dres, Jool, and Eeloo.

5. Observations: Not really compatible with SETI, since that nerfs the stock world's first contracts.

That's it for the moment.  I really like this concept, and with a little more development and some polish, it could work even better.  Even with its current shortcomings, it's still better than the stock admin building.

P.S. Big rockets are "colossal" (spelling error).

[nightingale]

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

2. Clarity: Needs some work. Examples: Like many an experienced KSPer, my first foray out of LKO was a manned mission to Minmus, since it's easier than the Mun and probe cores aren't unlocked yet.  I chose the Minmus program and enjoyed my enhanced rewards (at the cost of some reduced rewards for things I was doing at the same time on Kerbin itself).  Unfortunately, it wasn't clear at the time I chose that focus that it would preclude me from doing the other three Mun and Minmus programs, which then became permanently locked out.  Some warning would be nice, or possibly rejiggering it so that Mun and Minmus don't cross-preclude each other.  Other strategies also appear incompatible, such as "To Boldly Go" and "Free Ice Cream", but this isn't clear in the in-game documentation or screen graphics.

Not sure there's much I can do to make it more clear, as I gave the requirements their own section in the text, and used green/orange highlighting to show what's met/unmet:

This specific example is probably because it's green at the start - so most people are going to skim over it.  Actually, I'll break each into their own line item - that should help.

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

3. Upgrades: Couldn't figure it out.  I had chosen "To Boldly Go I" and it wouldn't let me choose "To Boldly Go II".  Do I have to cancel the first before starting the second?  If so, how does it figure out the discount for upgrading?  An "upgrade" button or something that holds your hand a little bit more would be helpful.

Looks like everything in the science column wasn't set up properly to be upgradeable - that's why you were having issues there.  Fixed for next release.  Upgrade button would be great, but GUI changes are off the table until after KSP 1.1. comes out (and even then they may be such a big effort that it isn't worthwhile).

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

4. Suggestions: This biggest drawback seemed to be when running an actual space program, using KAC and having multiple missions on the way at the same time to different destinations.  To help, you might consider making some vaguer, weaker strategies, such as "Kerbin's Moons" which would let you run multiple manned and unmanned missions to the Mun and Minmus simultaneously at a reduced benefit level.  Similarly, a weaker strategy for "Kerbin's Neighbors" would allow simultaneous missions to Eve and Duna, while "Far Out, Man" would allow simultaneous missions to Moho, Dres, Jool, and Eeloo.

Not a bad suggestion.  Raised #17

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

5. Observations: Not really compatible with SETI, since that nerfs the stock world's first contracts.

Fair enough.  SETI and Strategia are both moving targets at the moment - so not sure if/when they would be truly compatible.  Most likely course is once Strategia goes to release @Yemo will need to look at it and decide how/if it fits in with his SETI vision.

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

P.S. Big rockets are "colossal" (spelling error).

Good catch - definitely report any of those spelling errors.

[Norcalplanner]

7 minutes ago, nightingale said:

Not sure there's much I can do to make it more clear, as I gave the requirements their own section in the text, and used green/orange highlighting to show what's met/unmet:

This specific example is probably because it's green at the start - so most people are going to skim over it.  Actually, I'll break each into their own line item - that should help.

Looks like everything in the science column wasn't set up properly to be upgradeable - that's why you were having issues there.  Fixed for next release.  Upgrade button would be great, but GUI changes are off the table until after KSP 1.1. comes out (and even then they may be such a big effort that it isn't worthwhile).

Not a bad suggestion.  Raised #17

Fair enough.  SETI and Strategia are both moving targets at the moment - so not sure if/when they would be truly compatible.  Most likely course is once Strategia goes to release @Yemo will need to look at it and decide how/if it fits in with his SETI vision.

Good catch - definitely report any of those spelling errors.

 

Thanks for the quick feedback. 

I guess what I was thinking (and didn't communicate very clearly) is that it would be good to have something prominent on a confirmation screen (is there one?) when choosing a strategy which will close off other strategies, either temporarily or permanently.  Similar to how stock admin strategies warn that the cost of adopting a strategy is nonrefundable, having a final "are you sure" screen could point out the nonrefundable costs, the other "program" strategies which will be closed off forever or temporarily unavailable, and what other non-program strategies are temporarily unavailable while a strategy is active.

[nightingale]

32 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

I guess what I was thinking (and didn't communicate very clearly) is that it would be good to have something prominent on a confirmation screen (is there one?) when choosing a strategy which will close off other strategies, either temporarily or permanently.  Similar to how stock admin strategies warn that the cost of adopting a strategy is nonrefundable, having a final "are you sure" screen could point out the nonrefundable costs, the other "program" strategies which will be closed off forever or temporarily unavailable, and what other non-program strategies are temporarily unavailable while a strategy is active.

Good suggestion, but this is really one of the areas where I'm sort of forced into working with the stock system.  Anyway, there are very few strategy conflicts, and the ones that are there should be clearly labelled (the scientist/engineer/pilot ones).

[Gaultesian]

Update:

I upgraded to the latest version of strategia, and all of my 'enroute' issues have disappeared.

YAY!

[Yemo]

I changed the SETIcontracts milestone nerf from "to the ground" to "1/4 of original values". That should make Strategia compatible with SETIcontracts, though I lack the time for more detailed tests.

[smjjames]

I'm currently running through the historical missions and while it would have been cool to do say, the Eve strategy while doing the Venera missions, or even Duna, but the problem is that there is a long time between missions (heck, look at history), so, the short time of within a year pretty much mandates that you do it in one big mission rather than several over time.

Also, the astronaut training ones seem kind of useless because of the way the hire costs are currently exponential. So, if I did Astronaut training III, which is 400%, so, you'd be paying four times as much, which would make it go to astronomical costs FAST. The other perks are nice, but unless you do something about the way that the hire costs increase exponentially, there's little point to it. If it was 4x some flat non-increasing cost, then sure.

[Yemo]

3 hours ago, smjjames said:

I'm currently running through the historical missions and while it would have been cool to do say, the Eve strategy while doing the Venera missions, or even Duna, but the problem is that there is a long time between missions (heck, look at history), so, the short time of within a year pretty much mandates that you do it in one big mission rather than several over time.

Also, the astronaut training ones seem kind of useless because of the way the hire costs are currently exponential. So, if I did Astronaut training III, which is 400%, so, you'd be paying four times as much, which would make it go to astronomical costs FAST. The other perks are nice, but unless you do something about the way that the hire costs increase exponentially, there's little point to it. If it was 4x some flat non-increasing cost, then sure.

Hm, I set the hiring costs to 40000 flat for SETIrebalance, imho a good value. Maybe this could be part of the CCF (community career framework) discussion?

[nightingale]

6 hours ago, smjjames said:

I'm currently running through the historical missions and while it would have been cool to do say, the Eve strategy while doing the Venera missions, or even Duna, but the problem is that there is a long time between missions (heck, look at history), so, the short time of within a year pretty much mandates that you do it in one big mission rather than several over time.

I'm reworking those missions to take the time limits out completely for the next (and possibly final) release.

6 hours ago, smjjames said:

Also, the astronaut training ones seem kind of useless because of the way the hire costs are currently exponential. So, if I did Astronaut training III, which is 400%, so, you'd be paying four times as much, which would make it go to astronomical costs FAST. The other perks are nice, but unless you do something about the way that the hire costs increase exponentially, there's little point to it. If it was 4x some flat non-increasing cost, then sure.

I'm not a huge fan of the exponential costs either...  I'll have to think about whether it makes sense to change for Strategia.

[smjjames]

'Final release' as in final beta release or final release before 1.1 comes out or final release before feature complete?

[nightingale]

52 minutes ago, smjjames said:

'Final release' as in final beta release or final release before 1.1 comes out or final release before feature complete?

As in the 1.0 release.

[nightingale]

On 27/01/2016 at 7:34 PM, nightingale said:

I'm not a huge fan of the exponential costs either...  I'll have to think about whether it makes sense to change for Strategia.

Had to give this some thought, and I eventually decided that I don't want to get into anything that is trying to balance/rebalance existing stuff (slippery slope if I try to start doing that, it becomes its own very large mod).  At the moment I'm happy with the 2x/3x/5x/ cost multipliers for the Astronaut Training strategies - I think that one needs a strong cost downside to not make it an automatic pick.

Oh, and formula for costs is:

10000 * ((1.25 + 0.015 * <active kerbals>) * (<active kerbals> + 1))

Which is quadratic, not exponential.  Costs for the for 30 hires are in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

Current Active	Single Hire Cost
0	12,500
1	25,300
2	38,400
3	51,800
4	65,500
5	79,500
6	93,800
7	108,400
8	123,300
9	138,500
10	154,000
11	169,800
12	185,900
13	202,300
14	219,000
15	236,000
16	253,300
17	270,900
18	288,800
19	307,000
20	325,500
21	344,300
22	363,400
23	382,800
24	402,500
25	422,500
26	442,800
27	463,400
28	484,300
29	505,500

Edited January 28, 2016 by nightingale

[nobodyhasthis2]

On 11/15/2015 at 3:58 AM, nightingale said:

As I develop (already in progress, mostly framework stuff is done right now), I'm planning on posting up some teasers of strategies up in this thread. I'm also interested in any ideas anyone else has for strategies. So suggest away!

Here is a suggestion. I put in a this format for clarity and help us decided if this possible, fun or even worth the effort to code. Honestly I have no idea if this suggestion is good or bad. It might be possible to do but still not worth doing. So everyone needs chip in before a commitment is made to this.

I would also like to stress. If this does get put in. It must be optional.

Random strategy modification 

Implementation: How about a tiny chance of a strategy modification in the course of play. We don't need to model why or how this happens. Just inject some flavor text and change the numbers in a strategy. Nothing too deep. For example. Just say: 

"Sorry the Kerbals have discovered politics, elections are now taking place. Unfortunately this requires some smooching funds and the promise of extra snacks. MIlestone fund rewards cut by 5% until further notice".  

Then change the running strategy effect by 5% and a chance or time limit where it will revert to the default value.

Does this always have to bad news, no. Sometimes cool stuff happens. 

"Thanks to agency research data. Some graduates from KerbalEDU have invented the worlds first commercially viable snack microwave. Kerbal kind thanks you for helping get extra toasty snacks on demand. Milestone rewards +2% for a while"

Game play effect: It is kind of like Dang it for the guys in the Administration Building. It is a challenge to balance to books when nothing is absolutely guaranteed to stay stable. You have to think about a back up plan or worry about what the rest of Kerbin thinks of your space program. It brings drama into game. A sense of struggle and people like overcoming misfortune.  

What this modeling : Beyond the code what is happening is the business deal on which a strategy is based has changed. The strategies would in theory be influenced by background Socioeconomics. A space program that runs for years must be robust enough to cope with political influence, economic changes and public perception problems. 

Real World Example(TM): Well just look at the difference in the NASA budget between Apollo and now. During Apollo not having a good space program was perceived as major threat to national security. The public's attitude has changed since then and it seen as less important. To the point that there often a reported large scale misconception in the public over funding amounts. Changes like this just happen and the overall agency strategy is to adapt. See penny4NASA Or  NASA’s longest continuously operated mission. The spinoff public relations campaign.

How this translates to KSP: What this means is once and while your going to have to visit the Administration Building and ask yourself if the current strategy choice needs to be changed to reflect stuff going on. It can't be set near the start of the game and left like that. Things are going to change in the world around KSC and sometimes it just needs to adapt. Sometimes you need to add an extra strategy option. Sometimes you need to remove one that is no longer fitting into your future plans.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[nightingale]

2 hours ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Here is a suggestion. I put in a this format for clarity and help us decided if this possible, fun or even worth the effort to code. Honestly I have no idea if this suggestion is good or bad. It might be possible to do but still not worth doing. So everyone needs chip in before a commitment is made to this.

I would also like to stress. If this does get put in. It must be optional.

Random strategy modification

<snip>

I don't think this necessarily fits in that well with Strategia (although there's no reason someone couldn't build it as a separate mod).  Here's the issues I see with it:

• I'm not sure if the small percentages make a big enough difference to have a real impact on gameplay.  If the percentages are increased to the point where they are meaningful to gameplay, it may simply become punishing (ex. "your launch costs have now doubled/tripled" => "oops, you're out of funds and can't launch anything significant to make more funds").
• You'd need a GUI to display the information for the current modifiers (easy way is to have a dummy always on strategy that lists them)
• The same trouble I've had with developing Strategia - there's only so many ways you can modify funds/science/reputation as you have rather limited ways of getting those resources in stock KSP.  

[nobodyhasthis2]

25 minutes ago, nightingale said:

I don't think this necessarily fits in that well with Strategia (although there's no reason someone couldn't build it as a separate mod).  Here's the issues I see with it:

• I'm not sure if the small percentages make a big enough difference to have a real impact on gameplay.  If the percentages are increased to the point where they are meaningful to gameplay, it may simply become punishing (ex. "your launch costs have now doubled/tripled" => "oops, you're out of funds and can't launch anything significant to make more funds").
• You'd need a GUI to display the information for the current modifiers (easy way is to have a dummy always on strategy that lists them)
• The same trouble I've had with developing Strategia - there's only so many ways you can modify funds/science/reputation as you have rather limited ways of getting those resources in stock KSP.  

Like your analysis.

The more I broke this suggestion down and simplified it. The more I though that this is a hell of a lot of work. For a small gameplay feature that I don't think will appeal to the majority of Strategia users. Some people like random parts failures, but is going get turned off for most people.   

Also considering we have to go through the trouble of balancing new contracts and new strategies. This seems to add a layer of big grind to the problem of setting up a game economy in progression mods.

As you can probably see. I am thinking this out of scope for Strategia now. However for what it is worth. It is out there for someone to farm ideas from in a separate mod.

Edited January 28, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[smjjames]

How's the next update going? I'm interested in doing the probe and kerballed missions and stuff without the timelimits.

Edited January 31, 2016 by smjjames