What is the deal with these contracts

[Conbadicus]

So, I've put hundreds of hours into ksp and finally decided to give these contracts a go. The first 3 are great, milestones such as launch your first ship, orbit, etc.
Following that, immediately I get a ton of stupid contracts that make absolute no sense.

Haul a booster into flight above Kerbin.  Ok sure, this makes sense. DERP except It has to go between 23 and 28km alt... ANnnnnd be traveling at 250kmh, or what ever it was.  This led to several test flights fine tuning fuling vs thrust, ascent angle, etc. Eventually I just gave up on the contract.  Way too tedius, reward completely not worth the time. 
Same for parachutes, really? get a craft to a specific height and speed? 
Ferry 4 people to ___ location. What the hell I don't even have space to carry these people and I wont for a couple more science nodes.

I understand we need lots of stuff to do to earn money but... these are killing me.

[Tex_NL]

Nobody is forcing you to accept a contract. If you're not confident you can complete it, don't accept it.
And you might not have the skills/capabilities yet to take tourists. The advance payment you get for accepting the contract might allow you to get there sooner. You are totally free to delay contracts for a while.

[Fearless Son]

53 minutes ago, Conbadicus said:

Haul a booster into flight above Kerbin.  Ok sure, this makes sense. DERP except It has to go between 23 and 28km alt... ANnnnnd be traveling at 250kmh, or what ever it was.  This led to several test flights fine tuning fuling vs thrust, ascent angle, etc. Eventually I just gave up on the contract.  Way too tedius, reward completely not worth the time. 
Same for parachutes, really? get a craft to a specific height and speed? 

Those sound pretty easy, actually.  Make a test rocket with a capsule on a decoupler with a parachute.  Place a booster below that.  Put liquid engines radially around the booster.  Make sure the liquid rockets are in the first stage and the booster is in the second stage.  Remove most (but not all) of the fuel from the booster to save weight if that helps.  Stick a few tail fins around the bottom if you have them.  Launch and accelerate, but be careful to throttle down as you approach the target velocity.  You want to conserve enough fuel and keep your speed within that range as you ascend to your target altitude.  Once you are above 23km, hit the staging and activate the booster.  Cut the throttle, collect your contract completion payment, and wait for the booster to expend its remaining propellant.  Let the craft fall straight back down.  When the velocity is low enough, activate the decoupler and pop the chutes.  Recover the capsule and congratulate the pilot on having "The right stuff."

[Conbadicus]

Well, the game is forcing me to accept contracts as you need to earn money to build stuff.
This systems forces me to continue to deny contracts until I get a few that are "test at landed"

[GoSlash27]

Early career contracts are notoriously sucky. You simply don't have the capability to fulfill the better contracts yet and the ones you can do don't pay well.

 The good news is you don't need to accept *any* contracts until you are much further along if you do it right. Merely breaking records and achieving milestones is enough to keep you financed while you hoover up science and unlock tech.

 By the time you need to start looking at funding, you have much better contracts available. Rescues and satellites are my favorites. Satellites are highly lucrative, quick and easy. Rescues... you're basically getting paid handsomely to sign up experienced kerbonauts.

Best,

-Slashy

 

[pandaman]

I understand your frustration.

Though I've not played career foir quite a while I found the challenge of planning my flights and vessels to meet the test requirements quite enjoyable, but very frustrating at times too.

With a bit of thought and practice it gets easier, and you can often complete several contracts in one flight.

[MaxL_1023]

I strongly recommend using the contract configurator mod - it lets you remove the "test part" contracts from the generation algorithm. They are automatically replaced with contracts from some other area. You can then select which contract types you like to see. I usually delete tourism, satellite,  rescue (once I have enough kerbals) and testpart contracts by clicking one button each, and go to town on exploration, plant flag and science from body contracts. You will get situations where you can explore a body, leave a probe on it and collect money periodically as a science from X pops up. 

No more "test a mammoth on a suborbital trajectory over eeloo" contracts = fun all around.

[tater]

They are KSP contracts, so they are terrible, and make no sense. That's the hallmark of contracts in KSP. 

I just started a new career in the 365 mod (3.2x planets at 6.4x distance from each other). I achieved orbit, but apparently lacked the rep to be presented with "Explore the Mun." The only contracts offering decent rep were tourist contracts. Really? So I had to take a couple to get offered the explore contract (though I was offered flyby). Having done a free return to the Mun, my contract office (I refuse to call it mission control, because it's not) is full of tourist and rescue contracts, along with lame stuff that would require aircraft on kerbin (something I never build).

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, Conbadicus said:

Well, the game is forcing me to accept contracts as you need to earn money to build stuff.
This systems forces me to continue to deny contracts until I get a few that are "test at landed"

I disagree.

 #1 you don't have to decline contracts and you really shouldn't (it's bad for your rep). Just let them expire.

#2 as I said you don't need to accept *any* contracts to keep yourself funded in the early going. If you focus on collecting science and passing milestones, the money will work itself out. You will earn money far more quickly than you can spend it.

 For example, my normal "caveman" career had a half a million bucks in the bank by the time I was ready for facility upgrades. Never took any contracts or strategies. Same deal on hard mode, but a quarter million bucks.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 29, 2015 by GoSlash27

[tater]

Sure, you need not take any contracts, but given that they exist as a thing, wouldn't it be better if they were not awful?

[322997am]

1 hour ago, Conbadicus said:

So, I've put hundreds of hours into ksp and finally decided to give these contracts a go. The first 3 are great, milestones such as launch your first ship, orbit, etc.
Following that, immediately I get a ton of stupid contracts that make absolute no sense.

Haul a booster into flight above Kerbin.  Ok sure, this makes sense. DERP except It has to go between 23 and 28km alt... ANnnnnd be traveling at 250kmh, or what ever it was.  This led to several test flights fine tuning fuling vs thrust, ascent angle, etc. Eventually I just gave up on the contract.  Way too tedius, reward completely not worth the time. 
Same for parachutes, really? get a craft to a specific height and speed? 
Ferry 4 people to ___ location. What the hell I don't even have space to carry these people and I wont for a couple more science nodes.

I understand we need lots of stuff to do to earn money but... these are killing me.

He has a point. In 1.0.5 rejecting a contract gives penalties. There is a limit on how much contracts can be offered at once. And if all of them are stupid then you got yourself a sticky situation. I think the penalty should be removed.

[Randazzo]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Sure, you need not take any contracts, but given that they exist as a thing, wouldn't it be better if they were not awful?

I can't put my finger on any contracts specifically that I loathe, but it is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of the contracts I'm offered simply go ignored, because "why would I want to do that?". But on the flip side of the coin, I know there has to be repeatable fluff in the game for those lunatics who play on hard and need to grind money. Still, they seem to be a touch too arbitrary with silly requirements. Hit "X" altitude at "Y" speed wouldn't be so bad if X and Y weren't so often terribly mismatched.

All that said, I can't offer any specific suggestions on how to actually make them better either.

[GarrisonChisholm]

16 minutes ago, tater said:

Sure, you need not take any contracts, but given that they exist as a thing, wouldn't it be better if they were not awful?

I'm not sure I can "like" this point, but I love the way this sentence is constructed.  :]

[Conbadicus]

Yeah I understand using a liquid rocket to adjust speed makes sense if you are trying to fulfill those requirements is not very difficult. However, lets be honest - what use would this have to any space program? Maybe if it makes sense to use a liquid engine as a lifting stage and a solid as a 2nd stage ... but no. 

[GoSlash27]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

Sure, you need not take any contracts, but given that they exist as a thing, wouldn't it be better if they were not awful?

 It would, but there's not a whole lot you can accomplish for contracts in early career, and what you *can* do shouldn't pay well or else it will upset the game balance.

 Since you can get by (and even prosper) in early career without taking contracts, you're really better-off just ignoring them, especially when they're this crappy.

Best,

-Slashy

[tater]

8 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

I can't put my finger on any contracts specifically that I loathe, but it is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of the contracts I'm offered simply go ignored, because "why would I want to do that?". But on the flip side of the coin, I know there has to be repeatable fluff in the game for those lunatics who play on hard and need to grind money. Still, they seem to be a touch too arbitrary with silly requirements. Hit "X" altitude at "Y" speed wouldn't be so bad if X and Y weren't so often terribly mismatched.

All that said, I can't offer any specific suggestions on how to actually make them better either.

I'm somewhat of the same mind. In some other thread about the (terrible) contracts and career system, I recall saying that while I think the career is badly done, doing it well is non-trivial.

Squad claimed that contracts are now somehow contextual... I have yet to notice. 

Within the current system (science is just points, and those points buy tech), I would like to see some filtering of contracts via player strategy choices. Real strategies, not the silly exchange rep for funds, etc.. So If I chose to make my program 50% tourism, I see a ton of tourism and VIP contracts. If I chose to make my program 0% tourism, I see NONE of those contracts. Then I'd even be fine with the decline penalty (though you can always warp forward a few days instead of declining, so perhaps every time you decline a contract, you should take no hit, but warp forward until the contract offer expiry date.

3 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 It would, but there's not a whole lot you can accomplish for contracts in early career, and what you *can* do shouldn't pay well or else it will upset the game balance.

 Since you can get by (and even prosper) in early career without taking contracts, you're really better-off just ignoring them, especially when they're this crappy.

Best,

-Slashy

I mostly do, but you need contracts in the early game to get rep, so that you get offered the only contracts that I want (the explore contracts). You have to do something to score funds, after all.

[GoSlash27]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

I mostly do, but you need contracts in the early game to get rep, so that you get offered the only contracts that I want (the explore contracts). You have to do something to score funds, after all.

Tater,

 Merely *doing* is sufficient to improve your rep and earn you funding. Trust me; no contracts are necessary until it's time to upgrade the facilities. Once you get to that point, the good contracts will be waiting for you.

Best,

-Slashy

 

[legoclone09]

If you hate stock contracts, as many and I do, try some contract packs! Tourism Plus is good since you aren't flooded with tourksm contracts, Anomaly Surveyor is fun, and the SETI contracts give more balance, no explore Duna after a Munar flyby!

[tater]

14 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Merely *doing* is sufficient to improve your rep and earn you funding. Trust me; no contracts are necessary until it's time to upgrade the facilities. Once you get to that point, the good contracts will be waiting for you.

Career should be self-explanatory. Would a new player know that they could ignore contracts, or would they assume they need to take them?

You don't even precisely know your rep except upon examining the save game window. Presumably these are the "milestone" rewards. I honestly don't even remember what the milestones actually are. I tend to not hit them as fast given 6.4X distances, and I play with LS. Even with that slight increase in difficulty, I did NOT gain rep fast enough to get the Explore the Mun contract, which it seems like I should see upon reaching orbit, no? I also never saw any rendezvous contracts, etc (given the 3.2X/6.4X) rescale in my game, I need to upgrade the facilities pretty quickly to be able to do anything (~6000m/s to orbit, and another 1200 to a mun interaction (flyby)).

[monophonic]

31 minutes ago, tater said:

Within the current system (science is just points, and those points buy tech), I would like to see some filtering of contracts via player strategy choices. Real strategies, not the silly exchange rep for funds, etc.. So If I chose to make my program 50% tourism, I see a ton of tourism and VIP contracts. If I chose to make my program 0% tourism, I see NONE of those contracts. Then I'd even be fine with the decline penalty (though you can always warp forward a few days instead of declining, so perhaps every time you decline a contract, you should take no hit, but warp forward until the contract offer expiry date.

This was announced for 1.1. It will work so that you get more contracts like the ones you complete and less of those you decline. The announcement was vague on what happens when contracts expire, but that's minor details.

[GoSlash27]

tater,

 I would expect a new player to make lots of mistakes. This is what separates them from veteran players, and why veteran players chime in and say "your life would be easier if you just ignore that for now".

 In your case, I can't speak to how well the stock contract/ reward system works for modified installs. I wouldn't expect it to be good for all foreseeable cases like yours. My advice is strictly for stock games with standard difficulty settings through "hard".

Best,

-Slashy

 

[Pecan]

45 minutes ago, tater said:

Career should be self-explanatory. Would a new player know that they could ignore contracts, or would they assume they need to take them?

A new player already has far too many things to worry about learning to build and fly spacecraft, without giving themselves the additional worries of career mode.
Career mode is not there for new players - everything about it should put them off - it's there for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

As the OP is experienced already, if you are getting no good contracts early on but have some decent tech do a moon (either one) flyby, orbit, and/or landing. You'll get the world first dough and it will open up a new level of contracts. No need to wait for these to show up as a goal, if you can do even a simple Mun flyby that is a good kickstart on better contracts.

Quote

Career mode is not there for new players - everything about it should put them off - it's there for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions.

Ouch! I both agree and disagree with that- some career things, like rescues, are more fun than infinite L5 Kerbals IMO, and having some constraints can make something more fun. That being said, I watch some KSP YT vids and think to myself that I am a boring human being and am not doing this game right

[tater]

39 minutes ago, Pecan said:

A new player already has far too many things to worry about learning to build and fly spacecraft, without giving themselves the additional worries of career mode.
Career mode is not there for new players - everything about it should put them off - it's there for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions.

This is just patent nonsense. Career provides no missions at all for the player to do, really. In every thread about career you see that in fact no one wants to do the suggested contracts, and merely try to fit some contracts into missions they have already decided to do themselves. The purpose of career (a good career system, not what KSP has) is to put the individual missions into a context that includes limitations, ideally producing novel situations/problems to solve. 

The real space race, while a pork fest, none the less had a limited budget, and constraints on what technology was available at any given moment. THAT is what career should be for, those limitations. Those are the kinds of decisions career SHOULD have. Test things better, or go now (I'd love a space race type career) because you worry that the other side is about to send guys to the Mun. 

Edited December 29, 2015 by tater

[GoSlash27]

24 minutes ago, Pecan said:

A new player already has far too many things to worry about learning to build and fly spacecraft, without giving themselves the additional worries of career mode.
Career mode is not there for new players - everything about it should put them off - it's there for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions.

Pecan,

 I definitely don't agree with this... at least the second part. The OP has hundreds of hours in sandbox, but is a newbie at career mode.

 Career is definitely more challenging than sandbox, and I have a lot more fun playing it. I can do whatever I want in sandbox with no limits. Career imposes limits that take skill, experience, and yes, "imagination" to overcome. Unlike sandbox, it is *literally* a game that can be lost. I would not denigrate the people who enjoy it as "lacking" anything.

Best,

-Slashy