What is the deal with these contracts

[Just Jim]

30 minutes ago, Pecan said:

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.

Seriously?  No imagination?  I highly disagree!  It takes a great deal of imagination to fulfill a large space station or base contract, WAY more than launching a station in sandbox at NO COST!  I love career, especially for the challenges everyone else seems to be complaining about!  I love finding ways to combine 3 test contracts and 2 rescue or tourist contracts into one flight, or trying to build a massive ship and still stay under budget.

Career is hard, it's meant to be hard... Just remember what JFK said:

We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!!!

Please, DEV's, don't wimp out and make KSP career mode into another easy instant gratification game.

 

 

[Mikki]

Do this, and tell what a ROYAL PAIN  it was 

[magimix]

34 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

Seriously?  No imagination?  I highly disagree!  It takes a great deal of imagination to fulfill a large space station or base contract, WAY more than launching a station in sandbox at NO COST!  I love career, especially for the challenges everyone else seems to be complaining about!  I love finding ways to combine 3 test contracts and 2 rescue or tourist contracts into one flight, or trying to build a massive ship and still stay under budget.

Career is hard, it's meant to be hard... Just remember what JFK said:

We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!!!

Please, DEV's, don't wimp out and make KSP career mode into another easy instant gratification game.

 

 

I'm brand new to the game, with 20 hours logged.  I did the early tutorials for about three hours, then jumped into Career mode.  Haven't touched Sandbox at all.  I greatly enjoy the challenges presented by most of the contracts, even part-testing ones, which I find to be a fun distraction from more conventional flight activity.  

More crucially, Career mode gives me something that pure sandbox wouldn't to anywhere near the same degree - constraints and limitations I need to work within.  Furthermore, many of the contracts involve doing things I'd otherwise not think of doing; these externally applied requirements mix up my plans in interesting ways.

In fact, Career mode is what pushed me over the edge to buying the game.  

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by magimix
typos

[Pecan]

On 12/29/2015 at 2:22 PM, tater said:

This is just patent nonsense

The whole science/tech-tree thing is available in science mode.
I can just about grant most of the building limitations (except exploding buildings).

So:

• how do money, reputation and contracts not add complexity?
• In what way does an absence of manoeuvre nodes make KSP easier to learn?
• What, exactly, is it that career mode offers to new players?
• What, if not money, reputation, contracts and exploding buildings, does it offer anyone?

 

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, Mikki said:

Do this, and tell what a ROYAL PAIN  it was 

The thing is, I consider this a fascinating challenge, not a royal pain.

And for the record, my fan fiction project, Emiko Station, is about a class E asteroid space station, and I'm doing it with a career game!  

[Fearless Son]

4 hours 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"

Well, not strictly, no.  

First of all, you never have to accept a contract, nor do you have to decline them either (and in fact you rarely should decline them because you take a small reputation hit when you do.)  If none of the contracts offered to you look appealing, just go out to the main space center building selection screen and time-accelerate, then go back in to the administration building and see what is new.  Contracts come and go, and you should just snag the ones that actually look fun or you were planning to do anyway.  It is not like you need to pay maintenance costs in the meantime.  

Secondly, the variety and quality of the contracts you are offered are a function of your tech-tree unlocks and your reputation.  Get a better reputation, get better contracts.  Unlock new capabilities through the tech tree, get a wider variety of contracts.  If you can suffer through a few of the early game scuttwork, you should be well on your way to getting ambitious engineering and planning challenges.  

Some tips for starting out:  your administration building can only have you working a limited number of contracts at a time before it gets upgraded, so you should focus only on accepting contracts you can expect to fulfill in the immediate future.  Do not accept just any contract that comes along, because the ones that are beyond your present reach or your interest will crowd out the other contracts that might be more up your alley.  There are a few obvious "gimmy" contracts that are things you will probably do anyway, like "Explore X" contracts.  These never expire, so do not feel obligated to grab them right away, but certainly pick them up before you are planning on doing them anyway, and generally follow on from one to the other in order of distance from Kerbin.  For example, it might start with "reach Kerbin orbit", then "Explore the Mun", then "Explore Minmus", etc.  Since those are things you will be quite likely to do as you expand your career, these make a great way to earn some early cash, and completing each of them unlocks other contracts for returning to these various bodies (for example, after getting a contract to explore a particular body you might get follow-up contracts to plant flags on them or return scientific data from the surface.)

[GoSlash27]

• how do money, reputation and contracts not add complexity?

They do. That's the point.

• In what way does an absence of manoeuvre nodes make KSP easier to learn?

It doesn't, but learning how to operate without them can improve an experienced player's skills.

• What, exactly, is it that career mode offers to new players?

Nothing useful, but the OP isn't a new player.

• What, if not money, reputation, contracts and exploding buildings, does it offer anyone?

A challenge above and beyond what sandbox and science mode offer. An opportunity to "lose" by failing to achieve your goals. Some people enjoy that sort of thing (myself included).

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 30, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Fearless Son]

I find the career mode helps me by applying certain constraints to my construction and launching schedule.  I now think of things in terms of cost-effectiveness.  "Can I do this cheaper?"  I think, "Okay, how much will I need to save up to do this really ambitious mission?"  I think, "Okay, I need to earn a little more so I can upgrade this building and push my boundaries a little further."  

The restraint helps act as a channel for my imagination, an impetus to get creative with how I apply my limited resources.  I worry that absent that, I would get too complacent, always giving in to the temptation to build inefficient and impractical over sleek and effective.  

[tater]

15 minutes ago, Pecan said:

The whole science/tech-tree thing is available in science mode.
I can just about grant most of the building limitations (except exploding buildings).

So:

• how do money, reputation and contracts not add complexity?
• In what way does an absence of manoeuvre nodes make KSP easier to learn?
• What, exactly, is it that career mode offers to new players?
• What, if not money, reputation, contracts and exploding buildings, does it offer anyone?

@Nathir - feel free to join in answering that last question, although I do make allowance for your Wheaton-fever.

How does any limitation (a budget, for example) mean that everyone who plays career has no imagination. Be specific. You said that was what career was for.

The science/tech interaction is terrible, actually, it makes no sense whatsoever and should be scrapped. 

How does money/rep/contracts NOT add complexity? You are arguing that career is for people who lack imagination, so you should be arguing that limitations don't add complexity, not that they do add complexity.

I don't think career is designed to make KSP easier to learn, so I don't understand what your point is, and in addition, I also think that that limitation in career is absurd, and I'd scrap that, too.

I already answered the bit about new players, I see career as something that should ideally exist for repeat players, not for new players necessarily.

The current career offers little---which is a primary point of this thread as it has evolved, if you've been paying attention. A good career system would look very little like what we see in KSP, and the goal would be to limit player choices based upon constraints (budget, tech development, etc) to try and put a space program into some context. In addition, it should end up providing novel challenges that sandbox/science modes do not produce.

To facilitate this, the entire contract/science/tech system needs to be bulldozed and started over. A few primary changes are required, IMO:

1. Time needs to matter. (think Kerbal Construction Time, or something less complex, but similar in some ways).

2. "Fog of war" needs to exist. Exploring is the goal, so the player should need to explore. The positions/orbits of all worlds would be known, as well as mass, etc, but much should be unknown. This means the Kerbol system should be able to change per game (stock system would be an option). The player knows what could be known via group-based astronomy alone. Want to land on the 2d world from Kerbol... better send something to see what the atmosphere is like.

3. While anathema to Squad, failure needs to be a possibility for parts. The chance can be slim, but some types can be more reliable than others, and as parts get tested/used, they can improve WRT reliability. 

4. Life support. Goes with time being a thing (LS alone makes time suddenly meaningful). A huge, and important constraint that matters, and should matter in career mode.

5. A better system for researching new tech. Perhaps testing and some science are prerequisites for some tech.

6. Kerbals that can actually do things. If the player designs a good mission (waypoints), having Jeb actually fly is not out of hand (the player can always fly themselves, as well).

7. Not required, but ideally a foil for the player. KSP needs a Space Race as at least an option. With time, etc, mattering, then the player is stuck making choices of safety vs "winning" to achieve the next milestone goal. The rescues imply this already, it needs to be explicit.

[Pecan]

34 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

... [some stuff that is beside the point or proved mine] ...

A challenge above and beyond what sandbox and science mode offer. An opportunity to "lose" by failing to achieve your goals. Some people enjoy that sort of thing (myself included).

My previous posts in this thread were directed at tater, specifically referring to career for new players.  It is that that I am arguing against, hence the cut in the quote.

However, since you comment:
Are ANY of these challenges ones you could not implement or constrain yourself to in sandbox?
Is someone of your experience really likely to 'lose' except, as you say by 'failing to achieve your goals', exactly the same as in sandbox?
Presumably then what you enjoy is the selection of missions career mode devises for you.

Fine, there's no wrong way to have fun.  You use a mission-generator and spreadsheets, I use MJ ^^.

ETA for below:
And yet I can choose to design for any combination of cost, part-count, mass, tech-level, dV, payload-fraction ease of building/flight and/or any other consideration even in sandbox.  Amazing, isn't it.  Cheapest/fastest/lightest/longest-range vehicles of all sorts have been created in 'challenges' long before career mode.  The reason for choosing the latter is that it gives you the relevant missions.  Oh yeah - and the profit.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Pecan

[GoSlash27]

22 minutes ago, Fearless Son said:

I find the career mode helps me by applying certain constraints to my construction and launching schedule.  I now think of things in terms of cost-effectiveness.  "Can I do this cheaper?"  I think, "Okay, how much will I need to save up to do this really ambitious mission?"  I think, "Okay, I need to earn a little more so I can upgrade this building and push my boundaries a little further."  

The restraint helps act as a channel for my imagination, an impetus to get creative with how I apply my limited resources.  I worry that absent that, I would get too complacent, always giving in to the temptation to build inefficient and impractical over sleek and effective.  

^ This. You really have no idea how good you are at this game until you are forced to operate under adverse conditions. You may not even be aware that there are gaps in your knowledge and skills. Spacing is easy when you have unlimited access to all the best parts, full facilities, and a blank check to spend whatever you want.

A true Kerbonaut can do it with rudimentary facilities, low tech parts, and actually turn a profit in the process. Doubly- so in hard mode, where costs are higher, rewards are reduced, and there are no quicksaves or reverts.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 30, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Pecan]

21 minutes ago, tater said:

How does any limitation (a budget, for example) mean that everyone who plays career has no imagination. Be specific. You said that was what career was for.
...How does money/rep/contracts NOT add complexity? You are arguing that career is for people who lack imagination
...I don't think career is designed to make KSP easier to learn
...I already answered the bit about new players, I see career as something that should ideally exist for repeat players, not for new players necessarily.

...

I said career was for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions.  If you want to design a ship within a budget limit then just do it - if you need the game to tell you what you're budget limit is, that's fine too but doesn't take as much devising.

I am not arguing that career is for people who lack imagination, quite a lot is needed to design the required ships if you do many of the missions.  I am arguing with your suggestion that career-mode should be redesigned for new players.  However ...

Somehow or other I seem to have got your intention on that confused - or at least, I'm very confused about it now - and I can't see where you answered it.  Are any of your posts missing or is this forum just freaking-out on me?  Anyway; if you're not saying career-mode is/should be for newbies then all that discussion's over.

[GoSlash27]

54 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Are ANY of these challenges ones you could not implement or constrain yourself to in sandbox?

Absolutely. For example, executing a rendezvous with Minmus without patched conics.Rendezvous/ docking in low orbit without the benefit of target tracking. Do a low Munar flyby for science without solar panels or SAS. Moreover, the challenges of career mode are the type I'd be unlikely to consider when playing sandbox. "Return science from the Mun within this part count/ weight while using only these parts. Turn a profit, do it right the first time, and don't kill anyone". That's a pretty specific set of parameters for sandbox. There are some challenges you just have to run into before you would ever guess you'd need to be able to do them.

54 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Is someone of your experience really likely to 'lose' except, as you say by 'failing to achieve your goals', exactly the same as in sandbox?

 I certainly have "lost" in the past. I learned from my mistakes and the experience of others. I would never have been able to get to this point by merely playing sandbox.

54 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Presumably then what you enjoy is the selection of missions career mode devises for you.

Incorrect. As I said, the contracts are rarely required and completely unnecessary in early career. The point is to gather science and unlock the tech tree without going broke. I plan my missions to achieve this goal within the constraints of career, not just blindly execute contracts. When I execute contracts, that's merely to keep the lights on.

*edit* I think this is where you're hung up. You presume that career mode is merely executing the contracts the game gins up for you. Not the case. You still have to devise/ plan/ and execute your own missions, same as sandbox. You just have to make it happen within whatever limitations career imposes or face bankruptcy. This requires more imagination, not less.

54 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Fine, there's no wrong way to have fun.

Finally, something we agree on

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 30, 2015 by GoSlash27

[tater]

10 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I said career was for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions.  If you want to design a ship within a budget limit then just do it - if you need the game to tell you what you're budget limit is, that's fine too but doesn't take as much devising.

 

The budget needs to constantly change based upon what you have done, not done, what has failed, etc. I'd have to write an external campaign game to do this for KSP.

10 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I am not arguing that career is for people who lack imagination, quite a lot is needed to design the required ships if you do many of the missions.  I am arguing with your suggestion that career-mode should be redesigned for new players.  However ...

 

You SAID that was what career was for, that IS what you are arguing, if you mean something else, don't say that career is for people who lack the imagination to make their own missions.

I also did not say that career should be redesigned for new players, I said it should be redesigned period. My only reference to new players was that any career system (any UI at all, frankly) should be self-explanatory. If you need to find a forum thread to realize that you can earn funds/rep without contracts, or that you need to use the ] key to rescue a verbal, the UI/career system is broken. It should be clear to any new user what gives them what.

10 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Somehow or other I seem to have got your intention on that confused - or at least, I'm very confused about it now - and I can't see where you answered it.  Are any of your posts missing or is this forum just freaking-out on me?  Anyway; if you're not saying career-mode is/should be for newbies then all that discussion's over.

 

I've never said career mode is for noobs, I said that any career mode should not require reading up on a forum to make sense of how it works. In other threads I have said that career mode is backwards regarding difficulty, in fact, that it is most difficult at the beginning, then infect becomes sandbox. For new players this is exactly wrong.

I like campaign/career games in general, but the KSP career is poorly executed.

The goal should not (and is not) providing missions for players that lack imagination, it should be to facilitate a sense that you are exploring the unknown, and ideally it should present novel challenges. I think noobs should play science mode as it forces a progression that can help.

[cantab]

Part tests can be fun. Really what it takes is a moment's thought and consideration. What are the flight conditions - are they lenient or annoyingly precise, and are they in or near your normal flight envelopes or way off? What's the part to test - can you handle the weight and bulk, and might it be useful to use for other missions before completing the contract? Read what the contracts say, take the stuff that's doable, and timewarp if there's honestly nothing.

And then you get to do stuff like this.

Up to altitude by cantab314, on Flickr

[regex]

5 hours ago, Pecan said:

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.

Truth.

Sandbox demands much more from the player in terms of building skill and setting goals, most especially if they are looking for a challenge.  It requires initiative and exploration, and doesn't hold your hand through a tech tree.  No monetary reward, limit, or external guidance (although the challenges forum is p cool) is needed, only the desire to do something in a certain way.  This is how things were done before career mode was added to cater to the less imaginative.

Not to mention career mode's numerous faults...

[MagicFireCaster]

I've made a lot of contracts in career mode, i have to say some of them are difficult now, in 1.0 trying those engines and all that stuff was was easier, it was a lot fun trying to do those right, i made a lot of ships for completing them. They're pretty nasty now but still fun and challenging, like trying to figure out the right angle to test an engine and still get back to home in one piece with limited budget and tech, now have almost all the tech i need but the contracts are pretty hard, i like to take some of them as a bonus to each trip to make it more insteresting or to test  my skills.

But if you like to play just for exploration and fun you're free to do as you like.

Edit: as a new player i loved contracts, of course i wouldn't accept any of the ridiculous ones, or the ones who required me to have serious tech or skill, i learned handy things by completing them, also testing experimental parts gave them to me so i could use them for another contracts or milestones, now as an amateur i'm right now i know i can complete all of the contracts, but some may take time (to do them and get some money from them), also is very fun reading some of them and realising how stupid they are, but they make ksp what is it, a cartonish space simulator, and i love it, makes the game a lot funnier.

Edited December 30, 2015 by MagicFireCaster

[Xavven]

I see no point to saying "people who play XYZ game mode are [insert inflammatory comment here]." No seriously, what's the point of that kind of statement? I think ya'll should shake hands, call a truce, bury the hatchet.

Now then, back to the OP's question. Yeah, many of us (but not all) agree that the contract system leaves a lot to be desired. There are countless threads in the forum history of players saying the same general things about the contract system, and just about all of said threads have very good game-design analysis on exactly what's wrong and how to fix it. As far as I'm concerned, if Squad's community manager has been paying attention, the devs should be well aware of the weaknesses in their Career game. It's just a matter of whether it's a priority for Squad to invest in improving it. Sadly, some developers don't listen to their community, and fail to make changes, often times easy changes that wouldn't take that much work but that would substantially improve the game, though Squad hasn't really given me reason to believe they fall into that category (yet).

Squad has relented to the community on a couple of things that I can remember in recent history:

1. "Saving" the ROUND-8 fuel tank (leaving it as Fuel/OX instead of converting it to Xenon)
2. Fixing how Isp works (making it affect thrust instead of fuel flow rate)
3. (coming soon) better orbital direction indicators, especially for satellite contracts
4. Tons of other stuff like aerodynamics, ISRU, heat of reentry, etc. though these were probably planned regardless of popular demand.

Squad has yet to deliver on popular demands like:

1. Bringing back the magic boulder (probably won't happen IMO)
2. Bringing back the barn (probably will happen eventually, but who knows when)
3. And of course, career mode improvements, as in the subject of this thread.

Guess we'll have to be patient. For all of my complaints about career mode, I'm still super excited to play 1.1 soon^TM.

[cyberpawn]

career mode is when NASA and USSR start space program

sandbox mode when China start space program

 

ugh i like all contracts.. but i don't accept them all.. i accept what i can complete..

[LaytheDragon]

8 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

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

 

"Hard" isn't that hard, but when I play with everything at 20%, there is no "infinite pool of funds". It requires very well designed ships to bring kerbals home safely with enough science or money for the next breakthrough tech or the next building. Playing with not-so-good parts means that upgrading buildings is an immediate goal along with obtaining more science, so such good contracts take awhile to get to. Luckily, once you can get something to orbit the Mun or Minmus, survey contracts have been made easier so the first ones you get are all above certain altitudes (meaning you can sit in a polar orbit and farm cash until your rep is too high for such contracts). These contracts and rescue contracts give good cash gains once they can be completed, and then you will have your satellite contracts, too. Sometimes, though, just doing a part test contract can be fun, too, though, and the later in the game you get, the more exotic and the better the contracts get (base and station contracts are enjoyable, and hauling an asteroid is a challenge)

Edited December 30, 2015 by LaytheDragon

[Columbia]

Honestly, as a Sandbox player, I have to say: Both of them are way different and seems incomparable.

In my opinion:

Sandbox is for those who like to roam free. Do anything they want. No limits or constraints.. just.. freedom. It gives a chance to explore the game's capabilities and limitations, or fool around. Anything that is possible with the massive selection of parts, and the destinations that you could arrive in. People have done both marvelous and foolish things because nothing is stopping you from doing so, other than the game's own constraints.

Career is for those who want a challenge to test themselves, or love the thrill of managing an entire space tycoon. It pushes to the limits at times but the satisfaction is even more than that of Sandbox because it shows one's ability to excel in hard times. It is a very different world from Sandbox. Sure, it may be a similar Kerbin or similar destinations, but the circumstances are really different.

For me, I don't think it's possible to compare them and dictate which is the smarter and more imaginative person by playing that.

About the contract:

I faced the difficulty of contracts the first time I played career too, and it was honestly a pain. Being a person who doesn't really like challenges, testing boosters in the air or submerging Poodles wasn't really.. good for me. The contracts are absurd, but as Slashy said, it's probably best to let it expire.

[regex]

9 minutes ago, Columbia said:

Career is for those who want a challenge to test themselves, or love the thrill of managing an entire space tycoon.

If only KSP actually offered that.  Instead we got Generic Side Quest System™

[Conbadicus]

Everyone seems to have a different IDEA of what career mode should be. Most of you who are defending it seem to have the mindset that career mode simply offers more unorthodox challenges with constraints such as money and tech. I believe someone also finds it necessary to claim that you can do this in sandbox mode and if you cant you're just not creative or unimaginative. 
So... why didn't squad add contracts/challenges to sandbox? "Do this and earn rep! Look your rep level is ____ compared to the rest of the world! Etc"  
Well, I think because their intention was to create something that progresses from small to big, requiring more of the player as he/she learns how to play the game. As pretty much most "campaign" modes do in other games.
Frankly, starting out in sandbox is very overwhelming. Here are hundreds of parts, have fun....   uhhh....   ok.. then.... Here is a small solid booster, a capsule, some fins and a parachute, after you play with this I'll give you a bigger booster.  Aha, now we have some progress -  and so on and so on,

I suppose the problem stems from how everyone is interpreting career mode. For me, something should give you a large goal - I suppose the milestones - Leave the surface, orbit kerbin, fly by the mun, orbit the mun, land on the mun, to minmus, etc etc. These should include minor steps along the way to facilitate the player learning how to get there. If all of these little challenges were designed to be done in concurrence with these large milestones, then they should be included in that milestone. Achieve orbit around kerbin - Bonus objective - Do so with X amount of parts, test ____ part at x altitude, blah blah. But if we were to include the current contracts into something like that, we are contradicting the struggle that a space program is always fighting - efficiency - unless those bonus objectives MAKE SENSE. If that specific part is generally used as a 2nd stage at that altitude then great, we've learned something, but if it is something arbitrary like testing a landing gear then we're just wasting resources to fulfill those requirements. Lets be honest, we make a specific testing vehicle to fulfill the conditions of part testing
 

Wouldn't it be interesting to research efficiency? Like fuel consumption rates. 

 

Anyway, thanks everyone who chimed in. 

[tater]

Mission types don't actually require much imagination. There are 4 possibilities per body: flyby, orbiter, lander, station/base. That's it. I disagree with reject's agreement with pecan on this basis, as the imagination is in HOW to fulfill the objective, not which one of those 4 it is. OTOH, I entirely agree that current career is a side quest system, hence my constant harping that it needs to be redone. It's such a fundamental problem I don't think mods can fix it.

[Randazzo]

I think a pertinent point here is that it took me a good long while to notice the contracts were sort of pointless. When I first started playing, they were what gave me direction, even if that direction led nowhere particularly useful.