Do you use the strategies?

[Raptor9]

34 minutes ago, regex said:

I find they require too much of an initial investment to use them when I want, early in career, and too little to late when I can afford them.  Add on to that the steep requirements for full investment (building upgrades, massive initial output) and there's no reason for me to use them.

I agree.  The initial setup costs are very steep, which makes me want to go full-in 100% commitment early on to make it worth my while, but like you said I have to upgrade the building first which takes a lot of money as well, not to mention I can't afford the initial setup anyway ha ha.

Having said that, I still use them.  The newest strategy is an interesting one: Leadership Initiative.  It focuses on field scientific work and milestone gains, but at the cost of gains from contract completion.  When you look at the 100% commitment benefits/costs, they read as follows:

+150% Funds to milestone gains
+150% Reputation to milestone gains
+50% Science to field work gains
-75% Funds from contract gains
-75% Science from contract gains
-75% Reputation from contract gains
Initial investment: 250,000 Funds, 500 Science, 100 Rep

I'm not gonna lie, that 150% additional funds and rep got my attention, and would probably more than pay for itself quickly.  But that 500 science points hurts.  I'd like to see more strategies like this pop up in future KSP updates, as more play-styles can be accommodated.  As soon as I get enough resources to invest 100% in this, I'm going for it. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Raptor9

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

The newest strategy is an interesting one: Leadership Initiative.

This is exactly the sort of strategy I want to use but, by the time I'm ready for 100% investment, it's pretty much useless because I've already collected a ton of milestones.  So much for individual initiative...

Edited June 1, 2016 by regex

[Guest]

Nope.  Never have.

[cubinator]

I hardly ever use the strategies. I rarely run into a situation that is too difficult to do without them.

[DaMachinator]

Serious Kerbal Business has some interesting strategies for modded players, although I've yet to try it due to juggling contracts and research being quite enough for me.

[tater]

I don't see them as "strategies" and I never bother with them.

[BeeGeenie]

I've used the Science -> Funds one, and the new one that lowers mission rewards and increases exploration rewards. Leadership initiative

It helps fund and justify interplanetary flights that I don't have a mission contract for to compensate for the limitations of the contract system.

Edited June 2, 2016 by BeeGeenie

[AbacusWizard]

The main reason to upgrade the Admin building, of course, is to get a swimming pool.

[wumpus]

I have to say, when I saw the "leadership initiative" I was impressed.  The milestones did a lot to fix career, and the leadership initiative allows players to emphasize it even more.  I didn't even think about moving the slider, but thanks to Raptor9 it looks like I won't waste the science (and other costs) on anything less than 100% (500 science is what, one [kerballed] Minmus biome?  At first I thought I'd just cheat the needed funds in, but it seems doable in game).

So far, I have used money to science and money to reputation.  The description implies that the lowest the slider goes is an obvious win, what it doesn't tell you that if the money isn't high enough for a single point, you pay the money and get nothing.  It looks like I'll have to cancel both with the "leadership initiative" inplace (since I wasn't getting anything with full costs for contracts, it will be worse for half).

[mk1980]

strategies don't seem worth it for the most part. some of them are too expensive (setup cost) to pay off, others are just a bad tradeoff. i might actually use them more if they were rebalanced. stuff like "15% better minimal recovery value" should NOT come with a penalty (lower maximum recovery value). noone in their right mind invests resources to unlock such a strategy. spending 1000 science or 200 rep or thousands of fuds to initiate a strategy that converts one resource to another also doesn't seem worth it. i guess you could use the conversions oncew you filled out the tech tree to turn science into something more useful, but that's about it. 

 

[justidutch]

My current career is in hard mode, all rewards are reduced to 40% from a normal game.  I am currently about 3/4 of the way through filling up the tech tree, and have just implemented the science --> funds strategy at 60%.  The conversion rewards aren't that great, but better than nothing I suppose.  Once the tree is filled up I'll upgrade the admin building and put the strategy to 100%.

[legoclone09]

I only use strategies with Strategia, and that's when I play Career. I usually play Sandbox.

[Cucco-Master]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

what it doesn't tell you that if the money isn't high enough for a single point, you pay the money and get nothing.

Actually this is not true (as of 1.1.2). The values displayed in the rewards info windows are rounded down, but what you actually get is the correct value. If you would get, let's say, 0.4 science from a strategy, it will display (+0), like you would get nothing, but if you look at your current science value before and after completing the contract, you will see, that the 0.4 points are added correctly. It's the same if you earn 10.4 points, it will also just display (+10), but you will correctly recieve your 10.4.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I always use Unpaid Research Program religiously in career mode. Typically at 30-50% commitment. Trading Reputation points (worthless basically) for Science points (the only thing that matters)? Yes please.

Once I'm further along in my career game I'll usually add in Outsourced R&D to trade Funds for Science as well, considering that funds stop being a problem once you get past the early stages of career.

I consider most of the other strategies to be under powered or not worth it.

[wumpus]

On 6/2/2016 at 3:03 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I always use Unpaid Research Program religiously in career mode. Typically at 30-50% commitment. Trading Reputation points (worthless basically) for Science points (the only thing that matters)? Yes please.

Thankfully, I've been trading money for reputation.  Unfortunately, it turns out I need roughly twice (well 700 compared to 400) the reputation before it will let me crank "leadership initiative" up to 100%.

[KerikBalm]

Early on: funds to science, and rep to funds ... or was it rep to science... I forget...

Then later I cancel the funds to science (need funds to upgrade R&D, and last tier of pad/runway), then later I reverse and go science to funds.

I'm thinking of doing leadership initiative too... I've got OPM installed, so there's lots of milestones... ie first visits to places.

Anyway, my missions self fund now with a mobile lab, the science->funds strat, and low cost travel thanks to SSTOs + ISRU + reuusable tugs/boosters in space (I've got multiple things in orbit of kerbin just to eject payloads towards a planet, then retroburn + light aerobraking + refuel from ISRU of Mun/Minmus/LKO space station supplied from mun/minmus).

Its basically the cost of the payload + the cost of a fairing to wrap it + 150 funds/ton of payload.

[wumpus]

TL;DR - Funds matter (if only for unlocking buildings).  If you overdo your strategies, expect hard decisions.

A word of warning for anyone excited by the "leadership initiative": make sure you can afford all the building upgrades before pulling the trigger (and cutting your money off).  I cranked "leadership initiative" up to ~80% (that reputation gate is brutal), and came back from Minmus after hitting 6 biomes previously untouched by kerbals (a few had probes on them).  Result: 6800 science (2k from strategies!).  Unfortunately, this means I now have about 4k of unspent science and a hard decision about unlocking stage 3 of my science center (1.6M kredits).  Best guess is that only probes will be sent to Duna the next launch window, but the MPL on Minmus will grind through all available science (my 6800 science mission has a second copy of all possible Minmus science floating around in space).

I still don't regret my "leadership initiative" (although I expect to undo my "funds for science" and "funds for rep" minimal strategies).  Just expect that the costs will be higher than you initially budgeted.  Having less grind and more "boldly go where no kerbal has gone before" will still be worth it.

[Corona688]

I don't see much use in the strategies unless you're stuck in a corner, which I consider to be what they're really for, considering what they do, exchange one resource for another.

For that use, though, they don't do enough.  You have to apply them early to get significant benefit, and early is the time you can afford them the least.

If you have a playstyle that constantly finds you stuck in the same corner though, they'd be useful.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Corona688

[Greenfire32]

I'm 99% a sandbox player, but when I do find myself running career, I almost exclusively ignore strats. They just seem pointless to me.

[G'th]

In the endgame, the one that converts Science into Funds is essential for keeping the funds rolling even when you aren't taking contracts. 

[Hevak]

On June 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, regex said:

I find they require too much of an initial investment to use them when I want, early in career, and too little to late when I can afford them.  Add on to that the steep requirements for full investment (building upgrades, massive initial output) and there's no reason for me to use them.  About the only one I've ever used is the science -> funds one at the end of career.  Basically I find them utterly useless except to transform the game into a proper sandbox once progression is complete.  I never upgrade the admin building; would rather send another mission or three for those funds.

This Is pretty much my view too..  And honestly I most of the time I don't even really want what they offer.  I think it would have been much better if they let you just choose your own strategies by picking and choosing what you wanted and what you would sacrifice. Maybe that would be to hard to keep balanced though.

someone brought up that it would be much better if the strategies were more rewards based and focused. As in we are going to focus on Munar exploration, or minmus say, and then you get rewarded things for achieving stuff in that focus. Like sending probes, landers, then actual kerbals. That would have been cool to me. And to be clear this was someone else's idea, I did not think of this and am not taking credit. 

On June 14, 2016 at 10:28 AM, G'th said:

In the endgame, the one that converts Science into Funds is essential for keeping the funds rolling even when you aren't taking contracts. 

This too.  Once you've finished the tech tree no reason not too.  But since I've switched to ctt I rarely get that far.  I also use some mods that have ways to make funds within normal gameplay with bases and stuff. So really unless I screw up I find funds aren't all that hard.  But I don't build too many monstrous spacecraft like some do, so I can understand others needing it. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Hevak

[Wjolcz]

9 hours ago, Hevak said:

This Is pretty much my view too..  And honestly I most of the time I don't even really want what they offer.  I think it would have been much better if they let you just choose your own strategies by picking and choosing what you wanted and what you would sacrifice. Maybe that would be to hard to keep balanced though.

I feel like the whole "balancing" act is the main problem of this game. There are way too many points systems to care about: Science, Reputation and Money. Then there are all the rewards and each contract has its own reward based on the objectives, which are randomly generated (due to some odd decision making). Then there are also strategies which have to be balanced with each of those three resources with each stage of the tech tree "progression".

Anyway, my point is it gets way too convoluted really fast and that hurts the game, the gameplay, dev work and mainly the career mode progression.

I say:
-Make money reputation dependent
-Make reputation experiments dependent (they grant you rep instead of science points)
-Make tech money and time dependent
-Let us have direct influence on the types of missions generated (by picking programs AKA "filters" ourselves)

And probably a few other things I forgot about but can be found here.

That way we are monitoring only two resources (money and rep) which feed into each other directly and are easier to balance. No extra modifiers (strategies) are needed as the loop closes itself and the extra steps (programs and missions) don't disturb each other.

[Corona688]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I feel like the whole "balancing" act is the main problem of this game. There are way too many points systems to care about: Science, Reputation and Money. Then there are all the rewards and each contract has its own reward based on the objectives, which are randomly generated (due to some odd decision making). Then there are also strategies which have to be balanced with each of those three resources with each stage of the tech tree "progression".

I tried to warn HarvestR about this way back before career mode was implemented, how easy it would be to back people into corners by requiring mission successes to unlock parts, but giving them mission requirements they can't accomplish without more parts...  At the time the discussion was just about unlocking better cockpit controls.  Sometimes you can find creative solutions around the problem.  Sometimes you can't.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Corona688

[Arsonide]

On 6/1/2016 at 2:00 PM, regex said:

This is exactly the sort of strategy I want to use but, by the time I'm ready for 100% investment, it's pretty much useless because I've already collected a ton of milestones.  So much for individual initiative...

The reason Leadership Initiative has such a hefty startup cost, is ironically because of the milestones. Given the nature of the strategy, indeed you would want to start it as soon as possible. However, that first launch, you get bombarded with speed records, altitude records, and distance records. Those are fun for a lot of people because of the sheer amount of activity, and the money is a nice way to kick start the game with a few facility upgrades. With Leadership Initiative on, you would get a ridiculous amount of funds out of that first launch alone. Enough to upgrade most of your facility.

Additionally, the extra science from field work applies to experimentation science as well as milestones, so that early KSC science would be buffed a bit.

That is why Leadership Initiative has that early speed bump, the idea was to get that first launch out of the way, but I agree that the science cost might be a bit extreme. I'm considering another balancing mechanism there. One idea is perhaps differentiating records from milestones. Then the strategy could ignore the stream of records, and we could bump the cost down a bit so that people that want to be independent from the start can be without throwing off the early game balance too much.

[kBob]

After playing the new career mode for awhile now, I still find the cost of strategies just not worth it.  If I need more money it's usually easier and quicker to just do some tourist contracts and if I need science just a quick trip to some biomes to get whatever I need (or contracts early game).  They might be more tempting if they started out at the 50% figures (but only costing what the 5% do now) and maybe scaled down a little from there as the game advances. 

The only real problem with this is the contracts are a bit too random adding more randomness into the career mode than I care for...maybe some sort of highbred between contracts and strategies to get decent benefits but with less luck involved (and maybe more skill/experience by figuring out the best one for the current situation), but I'd have think on that some more (I'm trying to think of something that wouldn't require a total overhaul).  I understand the randomness of the contracts was to add variety but at least it could use some refining (and I think the weighting system was an attempt at this but then I keep getting contracts for things I wanted early but may not be so interested in now and few or none for things I would like to try now...the ~15 contract limit doesn't help with this either).

I still like the overall career mode much better than the science only career (I just use sandbox for trying new things) and I suspect these issues will get improved with time (reducing the science grind, maybe a few more sciency things to do etc.).