Station/base contracts resource requirements

[Wjolcz]

I would like to propose a tweak for the contracts system which would get rid of resource requirements on stations or planetary bases. I'd rather decide myself if I need it or not. Making me haul massive tanks "just because" seems kind of pointsless.

Modules and crew numbers (though sometimes a tad too high) are alright.

[The Aziz]

Most of them are just because, including crew on board. Why would I need three pilots on orbital station around Pol? 

And requirement to have 5000 ore on base (that is about 60 tons) is ridiculous.

[tater]

Yeah, what should be some of the only decent contracts is made just as awful as the rest of the contracts in the name of "so kerbal!" randomness.

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

And requirement to have 5000 ore on base (that is about 60 tons) is ridiculous.

Ore anywhere but next to the place it was drilled is absurd. All those contracts that require moving "ore" anyplace are terrible. I'm unclear on why regolith is in a "tank" to begin with ("ore" by definition is SOLID state, there is no such thing as liquid "ore").

Edited November 26, 2016 by tater

[Wjolcz]

I actually wouldn't mind hauling ore from different planets as long as the destination is only one: Kerbin.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Veeltch

[tater]

4 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I actually wouldn't mind hauling ore from different planets as long as the destination is only one: Kerbin.

I would treat that contract as if it was in fact a "sample return" mission. Large quantities make zero sense, however.

[Wjolcz]

22 minutes ago, tater said:

I would treat that contract as if it was in fact a "sample return" mission. Large quantities make zero sense, however.

True, but that's because ore is treated as a fuel source only. I think we've discussed this already, but IMO the "Bring X tons of ore from planet Y back to Kerbin"  could be a fun way to simulate a space mining industry. They could be simply very rare, or maybe from only certain locations (like Dres, which isn't a popular destination it seems) to push the exploration aspect a bit more.

^^ This is just a random pic I found on the internet, but I think building and maintaining such haulers could be pretty fun in KSP.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Veeltch

[James Kerman]

I both agree and disagree with your point of view but I find these contracts useful in mid career.

I use these missions to fuel stations and drive modules in orbit for rep and kash.

 I agree with you about the "landed on kerbin" stuff (I can't see why you would return space dirt to Kerbin unless it was a scientific sample).

[tater]

Love that lego model, lol.

Hauling ore makes no sense, though. An asteroid with a lot of water ice would be useful, but then you haul the asteroid. Metals? Move the asteroid.

Removing regolith from Dres then hauling the rocks to Kerbin? Why? Right now, the reason why people take "ore" off the surface is that the stock game doesn't have KIS, so there is no way to easily dock things on the ground, and it's literally easier to fly stuff to space, then transfer it.

Oxygen is easily available everywhere, trapped in soils. You're never going to haul metric tons of regolith anyplace at all. You'll drive the Oxygen off, and be left with Al, Fe, etc. Carbon is harder to find many places, particularly airless worlds, then maybe hydrocarbon ice is what you look for. Mining this would not result in "ore" however---I realize that the word ore is just a really poor choice of words in KSP, but I will harp on it, because I tend to be a pedant, lol, and "ore" has a meaning. Also, it is of course generic in KSP---another example of where more detail would make the game better. ISRU should have to be specific to a particular resource. 

Anyway, that's beside the point regarding hauling ore. There is a simple test, if it is ever cost effective (from a dv standpoint) to move "ore" anyplace, then the game is broken WRT ore. Ore should be such that only a tiny fraction of it can be converted to something useful, the rest being dead mass. If it's not, then it's basically already "refined" and it's not ore any more. 

[Wjolcz]

Yeah, it's true the ore-to-fuel ratios are oversimplified. I'd still like ore hauling contracts to be redone that way. They could always be simply ignored by those that don't want to haul it.

I guess we're going offtopic, lol. Maybe I should change the thread title to "General contracts discussion" or something?

[tater]

Yeah, sorry about going off topic on you.

OI also hate the "include X thousand units of LF" or whatever. I'd much rather have more specific station additions like adding specific crew parts (modded, obviously, since stock only has 2 station parts (HH and Lab).

[The Aziz]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Ore anywhere but next to the place it was drilled is absurd. All those contracts that require moving "ore" anyplace are terrible. I'm unclear on why regolith is in a "tank" to begin with ("ore" by definition is SOLID state, there is no such thing as liquid "ore").

But they could be exploited. AFAIK, you don't have to move whatever you drilled. Requirements are far more simple:
- Dig the x amount of ore here
- Have the x amount of ore there.
That means you could harvest something something eg. from Eve, and while the contract wants that ore to be in orbit of Gilly, harvest same amount from Gilly and put it into orbit.

Right?

[tater]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

But they could be exploited. AFAIK, you don't have to move whatever you drilled. Requirements are far more simple:
- Dig the x amount of ore here
- Have the x amount of ore there.
That means you could harvest something something eg. from Eve, and while the contract wants that ore to be in orbit of Gilly, harvest same amount from Gilly and put it into orbit.

Right?

True. At least the Gilly example is not entirely stupid, as moving raw ore from someplace you can literally jump off of is not a big deal (Gilly is really an asteroid, after all).

The implicit implication of the contracts, however, are to move ore, even if the game is not capable of tracking that. The ore contracts are all awful, IMO.

Edited November 26, 2016 by tater