Money in Career Mode: Contracts Office

[AvitusNerva]

I have a thought about how to get currency in career mode (don't know if others will like it).

Career mode starting situation: President X of Kerbin dumped money into a new space agency beginning with building a state of the art facility, but with a newly elected president all funds were pulled leaving a shiny new space center but no way to fund it. The military has oodles (infinite number) of a few basic rocket parts since the retiring of all ICBMs that are available to the space program (this way if a player runs out of money they can still do something). The last funding was used to build the contracts office (new game building) to secure the future of the space program. (Story is irrelevant, just how I thought of it)

When you click on the contracts office you get a screen with available contracts. They could be something like:

- place sub-assembly X in orbit around Y with inclination I, apoapsis A, and periapsis P (this way users could create challenge satellites for career mode) The max reward would be a function of mass and min delta-V (as calculated with basic orbital mechanics equations w/ Hohmann transfers) to arrive at orbit.

- place a spacecraft with specs (power, comms, fuel left, # of Kerbals, ect) into specified orbit (users get to design their own space craft, but will want to meet the requirements as efficiently as possible)

- mission (eg. Return sample from Duna northern pole or fly sensor X to specified orbit for 1 week and transmit back/return results)

Money: When the contract is placing a spacecraft, the user will have a new option button (or whatever UI is best) to “deliver†the craft (which will then disappear/become unavailable to the user). Then the reward will be reduced via a "success" factor. Maybe must be orbiting correct body to get any reward and the reduction is proportional to the required additional delta-V to go from the actual orbit to the orbit specified in the contract. Missions will more or less be pass/fail.

Additional Details: The user may only be able to take X number of contracts at a time and canceling a contract will incur a fee (user’s money may go negative [maximum negative amount?] in which case they can’t spend any money but all funds they do get will help get them back to black). Contracts are supposed to play well into users’ creativity (use any launch vehicle, doesn't matter how it gets there, just that it does get there). They will want to complete missions efficiently because any parts they do buy for the mission will come from current funds. Users can also use the money they get to conduct their own science or personal missions in addition to missions such as resupply stations that will facilitate future contracts (increasing profit margins!). This format for getting money is meant to be extensible to incorporate potentially new contract types. This is simply an infrastructure concept.

I would love to hear your comments!

[AvitusNerva]

Nobody has negative, positive, or critical comments? Does this spark any new ideas of spin-offs? I think this is an interesting model.

[regex]

I don't like this, it feels way too contrived and potentially railroadey. I would much rather see a system where you have budgets for general objectives, along with a general budget, that can be claimed even if you didn't "accept the objective" rather than the specifics of using certain parts to "do missions". KSP deserves so much more than a "do missions" system; I really hope SQUAD maintains the sandbox feel in career mode and lets the game accomodate what the player wants to do rather than doling it out to them.

[boomerdog2000]

I don't like this, it feels way too contrived and potentially railroadey. I would much rather see a system where you have budgets for general objectives, along with a general budget, that can be claimed even if you didn't "accept the objective" rather than the specifics of using certain parts to "do missions". KSP deserves so much more than a "do missions" system; I really hope SQUAD maintains the sandbox feel in career mode and lets the game accomodate what the player wants to do rather than doling it out to them.

What about a combination of both?

It being career mode you would need some direction (like missions/contracts) but also you should be rewarded for achieving things you haven't done before without having the mission/contract started.

I believe we all want career mode to continue after we manage to go everywhere. So you can have large bonuses for general objectives achieved (orbit Kerbin, flyby Mun, orbit Mun, land on Mun, etc.) but since these would run out we could have missions as a more continual source of funding. Perhaps more missions could be unlocked or show up more often after you're proven you can do something. For instance after the general objective reward for orbiting Duna is given missions similar to that would show up.

[regex]

What about a combination of both?

It being career mode you would need some direction (like missions/contracts) but also you should be rewarded for achieving things you haven't done before without having the mission/contract started.

I believe we all want career mode to continue after we manage to go everywhere. So you can have large bonuses for general objectives achieved (orbit Kerbin, flyby Mun, orbit Mun, land on Mun, etc.) but since these would run out we could have missions as a more continual source of funding. Perhaps more missions could be unlocked or show up more often after you're proven you can do something. For instance after the general objective reward for orbiting Duna is given missions similar to that would show up.

I concede that something like that would work (and probably well), but it is my opinion that the player should never be under any obligation/pressure to undertake "missions" and should be rewarded for the normal explorative gameplay of KSP. That would stay in line with the current tech tree, where we really have no obligation/pressure to complete it or even touch it (some guy did a "grand tour" with tier 0 parts). What we have right now, if I may paraphrase an EVE-O dev, is "Here's a tech tree, go **** yourself". This is the same sort of thing I'd like to see with a system of monetary rewards and management.

[boomerdog2000]

I concede that something like that would work (and probably well), but it is my opinion that the player should never be under any obligation/pressure to undertake "missions" and should be rewarded for the normal explorative gameplay of KSP. That would stay in line with the current tech tree, where we really have no obligation/pressure to complete it or even touch it (some guy did a "grand tour" with tier 0 parts). What we have right now, if I may paraphrase an EVE-O dev, is "Here's a tech tree, go **** yourself". This is the same sort of thing I'd like to see with a system of monetary rewards and management.

That's a fair argument. How would you handle getting stuck without new discoveries for too long or achieving all the rewards from discoveries and then running out of funding though?

[regex]

That's a fair argument. How would you handle getting stuck without new discoveries for too long or achieving all the rewards from discoveries and then running out of funding though?

Ideally by that time you'd be wanting to start a new game. vOv Under a procedural mission system you'd run into the problem where you'd eventually be doing the same thing you did last week (gets boring real quick), whereas a scripted mission system runs into the same issues an "objective" system runs into (running out of stuff to do). Residual income would help that but then you have to tackle the timewarp problem (not to mention that "waiting" is terrible gameplay; I play to be an active participant). More places to explore and things to do would largely solve the issue.

[boomerdog2000]

Ideally by that time you'd be wanting to start a new game. vOv Under a procedural mission system you'd run into the problem where you'd eventually be doing the same thing you did last week (gets boring real quick), whereas a scripted mission system runs into the same issues an "objective" system runs into (running out of stuff to do). Residual income would help that but then you have to tackle the timewarp problem (not to mention that "waiting" is terrible gameplay; I play to be an active participant). More places to explore and things to do would largely solve the issue.

Ah ok, I wasn't planning on starting a new game and was instead thinking about supporting what I like to do in sandbox ( build interplanetary bases, stations, whatnot) with career mode missions to make my program feel more meaningful. I guess our end-game goals are different. I like building up as much as I can and building a massive program.

[Dun Kirk]

its a planned feature, the uncontrollable building is mission control which will give you missions and budget. KSP will be a purely peaceful, "achieve geosync-K orbit for 10k", not military.

[regex]

Ah ok, I wasn't planning on starting a new game and was instead thinking about supporting what I like to do in sandbox ( build interplanetary bases, stations, whatnot) with career mode missions to make my program feel more meaningful. I guess our end-game goals are different. I like building up as much as I can and building a massive program.

I'm not sure how anything I've suggested would hinder a massive space program. If anything, I'd think a system where you "do missions" would be a big annoyance to players like you, since you'd have to do a bunch of unrelated stuff instead of what you'd rather be doing, like building that Jool station.

[boomerdog2000]

I'm not sure how anything I've suggested would hinder a massive space program. If anything, I'd think a system where you "do missions" would be a big annoyance to players like you, since you'd have to do a bunch of unrelated stuff instead of what you'd rather be doing, like building that Jool station.

I guess I misunderstood your original general missions idea. Would you be able to repeat them and what might they entail? From my understanding you were talking about getting rewards for achieving things like orbiting or flying by other planets. Which seems limited because we can run out of planets to orbit or land on.

[UberFuber]

I concede that something like that would work (and probably well), but it is my opinion that the player should never be under any obligation/pressure to undertake "missions" and should be rewarded for the normal explorative gameplay of KSP. That would stay in line with the current tech tree, where we really have no obligation/pressure to complete it or even touch it (some guy did a "grand tour" with tier 0 parts). What we have right now, if I may paraphrase an EVE-O dev, is "Here's a tech tree, go **** yourself". This is the same sort of thing I'd like to see with a system of monetary rewards and management.

How about a few hybrid system? Basically have multiple sources of income/science that player can do.

Regarding OP's missions, it would probably be more preferable to have more clear distinction on rewards than rewards based on calculation of various orbital factors. Because, frankly, if you want someone launch a satellite for you, you don't give them a equation of how they would be rewarded. It's more like, "I'll pay you $1,000,000 if you can get my satellite to a orbit inclination between 1 ~ 2 degrees inclination and an altitude between 100 ~ 110 km." You either achieve it or you don't.

Hm... I might just post a new suggestion thread of the possible mission types.

I've also proposed this Anomalies: Rewards for maintain orbiting satellites as a sort of exploratory-oriented "missions" for income/science. It's more or less a way to answer the problem of "Income/time + Timewarp = Meaningless income".

[regex]

I guess I misunderstood your original general missions idea. Would you be able to repeat them and what might they entail? From my understanding you were talking about getting rewards for achieving things like orbiting or flying by other planets. Which seems limited because we can run out of planets to orbit or land on.

I'm not exactly thinking in terms of meager rewards here, not to mention that a "do missions" system runs into the exact same problem. Besides, we'll eventually get other solar systems from what I've heard.

How about a few hybrid system? Basically have multiple sources of income/science that player can do.

A system that allows several different ways of making money/achieving goals seems best, and most in line with KSP's sandbox.

[boomerdog2000]

I'm not exactly thinking in terms of meager rewards here, not to mention that a "do missions" system runs into the exact same problem. Besides, we'll eventually get other solar systems from what I've heard.

I was assuming the missions could be repeatable. The idea being as you get better tech and experience you can earn more money since you'll lose less parts. I guess I don't like the idea of any sort of hard cap to the money regardless of how high it is.

[regex]

I was assuming the missions could be repeatable. The idea being as you get better tech and experience you can earn more money since you'll lose less parts. I guess I don't like the idea of any sort of hard cap to the money regardless of how high it is.

By the time missions were being repeated I'd be wondering why the hell I wasn't playing sandbox to begin with, which is why I'd like to see a looser system of gaining money. I also think it'd make more sense regarding "infinite money" if you weren't doing the exact same mission for the xth time, but rather whatever you actually wanted to do (building some epic station or base or whatever). Resources could help a lot with that, setting up a trade route back to Kerbin or another base for instance. It really depends on implementation, but I still maintain that "do missions" is pretty unimaginative for KSP, but I suppose they still fit in the larger scheme of things, providing yet another way to make money.

[Wahgineer]

Who said we have to trade back resources?

The way I see resources, they're meant to make career mode easier. How?

Material and manufacturing independence:

By mining, refining, and storing resources in space, you reduce your need for materials and equipment to be shipped up from kerbin. Need an interplanetary tanker ship? Don't construct the components on the ground and launch them to orbit! Build it in orbit to your specifications from the materials you mined and processed yourself! The only thing that you'll have to launch from Kerbin is the kerbals themselves.

Economic Independence:

Ships are now virtually free, thanks to the mining bases and refineries you run yourself, as well as the orbital shipyards that you own. The only money you have to pay is for the rockets that bring more kerbals to orbit.

[Tw1]

I am one of those players who feel making it all about set missions would ruin the game. I like that there is no navi type thing bothering me- "hey, listen, you should go to Jool and unlock cool stuff" "No knavi, I'm building my Mun station. Be quiet."

I'd prefer to be given a certain budget per year, which grows as your space operations become more extensive, as long as you show you can reliably perform research, and achieve feats like landing on new planets. It will fall, as you fail to return kerbals safely.

Like in simcity- no objectives, the challenge is to build a healthy, running city. I want to build a healthy, running space program.

Missions, like take Herp Derp Kerman to the Mun could be a way to supplement your income, but I'd rather find mission planning tools, when I go to mission control, than Knavi Kerman telling me what to do.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Tw1

[TimMartland]

I think this is good as a supplementary idea to the reward for accomplishing your own goals - a way to set targets and plan, whilst maybe getting a small boost in mission payoff (20%? 25%?)

[UberFuber]

By the time missions were being repeated I'd be wondering why the hell I wasn't playing sandbox to begin with, which is why I'd like to see a looser system of gaining money. I also think it'd make more sense regarding "infinite money" if you weren't doing the exact same mission for the xth time, but rather whatever you actually wanted to do (building some epic station or base or whatever). Resources could help a lot with that, setting up a trade route back to Kerbin or another base for instance. It really depends on implementation, but I still maintain that "do missions" is pretty unimaginative for KSP, but I suppose they still fit in the larger scheme of things, providing yet another way to make money.

I would imagine that missions to be procedural generated, basically you get several categories for missions, with the details randomized (perhaps some of those can be hardcoded special missions).

Payload Delivery - You're given a specialized part to be placed on your rocket that you need to deliver to a randomly determined Celestial body (and maybe a specific biome on said Celestial body). The parts may have special requirement, such as. This will be a common mission, and arguably the "easiest" (since you just need to get the parts there, crashing it into the Celestial body may be an option).

Temperature Control:In essence, the part will drain a constant amount of electricity (and has an internal buffer that's intake only) to maintain whatever they're holding at a constant temperature. If you run out of electricity and the buffer depletes, the part dies and you fail the mission.

Shock Sensitive: Throughout your mission, you cannot exceed a certain G-Force (such as 10G) else the part is destroyed.

Example mission:

Icarus Kerman, late brother of Jebediah Kermain, wishes for his remain to be buried on Mun. Deliver his coffin to Mun, need not be intact.

Scientific Studies - Similar to payload delivery in that you're given a specialized scientific instruments. However, in addition to the mission of delivering said instruments to a Celestial body, you may instead be asked to get the instruments into a certain altitude (landed, lower atm, upper atm, near apace, outer Space,or specific range of altitude) above the celestial body or specific biome. Once arrived, you'll need to "start" the experiment and let it run for a certain amount of time (depending on the experiment). Similar to Payload Delivery, experimental parts and their experiments can have, in addition to those possible for payload delivery, special requirements.

Short Term Experiments: Experiments that last just seconds, can occur for experiments in any environment.

Long Term Experiments: Experiments that last a few days. Cannot occur when part of the requirement is to be in lower/upper atm. Cannot specify a biome unless the experiment is performed while landed. The added challenge of these experiment is that you need enter an orbit (for near/outer space, or specific altitude range) or land it (when a biome is specified) instead of just doing a fly-by.

Power Requirement: When running, the experiment will need a constant supply of power through its run-time. For short term experiments, this could be a very high value (like 100e/s for a few seconds). For long term experiments, this will be fairly low (1~10e/s) and should challenge player to design their spacecraft to be able to supply the power needed for the experiment (or pay the weight in terms of lots of nuke generator).

Scientific Studies missions will generally have two rewards. One for transmitting the data, one for bringing back the instrument after successful completion of an experiment. Some mission will only have rewards for one of them (so, for example, some mission only needs you to transmit the result back to complete it and receive full rewards, some will require you to bring the part with the completed experiment back for full reward).

Example missions:

A. Two brothers seek to answer the age old question, do buttered toasts always land buttered side up on Mun? Perform this experiment while landed on Mun. Temperature Control required (to keep the buttered toasts from going stale). Transmit the result for full reward.

B. The Kerbohydrate Culinary Society wishes to know if its possible to bake bread on Eve. Perform this experiment while landed on Eve and bring it back for full reward.

Tourist - Also similar to Payload Delivery. you'll also get a specialized parts (a luxury on-board hotel suite?). The parts will generally be fairly heavy, require a constant amount of electricity, and contains a Kerbal. Similar to Payload Delivery, you'll need to "deliver" the part to various Celestial body. But instead of just one Celestial body, you're given an itinerary of a list of Celestial bodies to visit and what to do when you get there (for example, orbit at a certain altitude for a few days, land on it, etc). And unlike payload delivery, you'll have to bring the "parts" back. Part of the challenge is to plan for a multiple encounter mission (and/or plan for refuel stations along the way) while having to haul around a fairly heavy part that has a constant electrical requirement. Some missions will allow you to only complete part of it and still get rewards (partial or full), with bonus reward for completing everything.

Example missions:

A. Justine Keebler wishes to visit the following locations:

1. Two days around Eve.

2. A flyby of Moho under 20,000 km.

3. Land on Gilly.

[regex]

I would imagine that missions to be procedural generated, basically you get several categories for missions, with the details randomized (perhaps some of those can be hardcoded special missions).

snip

Gaaaaahhhh...

I'm with Tw1 on this 100%, I should be able to plan my own missions and hopefully never have to deliver someone's coffin to the Mun. Stuff like that should be completely optional because if it ends up being the core of career mode it will be a terrible, terrible game.

[boomerdog2000]

Like in simcity- no objectives, the challenge is to build a healthy, running city. I want to build a healthy, running space program.

I guess that's what I'm concerned about. What defines a healthy, running space program? I think some of us feel it is being able to do things others ask of us. While others feel it is having their own successful missions. Both options are true success-wise, I'm just not sure how we could get the game to recognize the second option.

[Nostromo]

Contracts Office sounds like a fun way to add background reasoning on WHY & WHEN you want to do something other than just science. I'd feel like Space X.

[Reavermyst]

I think along side this, there should be two things. Difficulty and a scoring system for said contracts. Also, they should consider the "Costs" that would go into the program such as cost of parts, fuel, and supplies. They could go as far as Kerbal salary, but I think that would make the game a tad TOO serious. ANYWHO....

The first bit I want to talk about is Influence. This is pretty much your space programs reputation with the world and "corporate entities," for lack of a better term, and determines just how much money they would be willing to invest in your space program. As you complete these missions, you're scored based on various factors such as Kerbal survival, speed, cost, etc. This score determines just how much more this entity would trust you in future missions. This little detail would open up "factions" of sorts and can even make that second space center a possible competitor in the space race(IE you do bad, they get the contracts and not you). Influence would also influence the Kerbal Recruitment rate. If your space center has a bad reputation, then Kerbals will be less likely to visit that recruitment office. Of course to balance that out, using Jeb, Bob, and Bill would need to be discouraged in some kind of fashion(IE if Kerbal salary was a thing, they would be the most expensive since they're all just simply that awesome). Otherwise, your space program would thrive on just those three to cut costs.

Difficulty would determine how hard it is to make money, produce science, and gain/lose influence rates. The easiest difficulty would start your space program out with more money, lower influence requirements for contracts and kerbonaut recruits. The easiest difficulty would mean a higher starting budget, higher rates of influence gained and lower rates on losses, and the influence requirements to open up contract opportunities. The hardest difficulty is pretty much the opposite of this and is designed for the most awesome of all kerbonauts with higher costs to everything, lower influence gain and higher influence loss, and mortal Jeb, Bob, and Bill because the truly awesome don't need to lean on immortal Kerbals to get the job done! ((On an added note, if things like deadly re-entry become official features, having the option to toggle these before starting would be very convenient.

But yeah, added depth but nothing too serious to add further meaning to career mode. Also adds a way of FAILING HORRIBLY to the point of having a game over state by having no way of going on missions. Sandbox would be your playground, Career would be your tug towards the reality, not a drop off a cliff into stabby rocks of reality(unless you're hardcore and play on the hardest difficulties for sheer masochistic bliss), but a nice relaxing lounge that lets you use your think muscles a bit more to a void losing your space program to poor funding... or bad reputations because you like lobbing nukes at K2....

Edited November 9, 2013 by Reavermyst

[Tw1]

I guess that's what I'm concerned about. What defines a healthy, running space program? I think some of us feel it is being able to do things others ask of us. While others feel it is having their own successful missions. Both options are true success-wise, I'm just not sure how we could get the game to recognize the second option.

I don't think it would be that hard, the game already tracks when you do a flyby, orbit, or landing. There's the science point system, and hopefully some day, there will be more sorts of data that can be brought back, and archived. Then there's also the number of kerbals killed. Combining that gives some simple measures to determine the space programs base* funding level.

*As in, rather than X$$ earned per thing, X$$ per year.

The main differences between the two types seems to be whether you, or the computer chooses the things to do, and whether there are locked in goals before you launch.

The mechanisms used to measure success should work with either.

I'm not opposed to contracts, but I really feel they should things that you could tack on to other missions, rather than things that you have to do on their own.

For example, Science requests could be nice and simple.

If you're sending a probe to Duna anyway, and some scientist is politely asking for data from Ike, you could make some modifications and do a flyby. Then, with a few clicks back on Kerbin, you can send the data to him/her for appraisal.

Then, you get a little boost to your funds from their organisation.

Payload delivery could be fun, but it really only makes sense for things within the kerbin planetary system. Why would commercial interests have a use for something near Duna? Most tasks relevant to the other planets would be more likely fall into the science category, apart from perhaps setting up remote science equipment for long term use.

Perhaps part of the mission could involve designing the satellite for approval- personally, I imagine KSC as the only institution on Kerbin that actually builds space things.

Space tourism could also work pretty simply. If you agree to take someone somewhere, they could just appear in the crewlist. They might have a slightly different icon, and a little info to remind you that they are a paying passenger, and not part of your crew.

Then it's simple, include him in the next trip to that location, return him, and get paid.

If you don't get him to the desired destination, he will be annoyed. Bad problems for you if you kill him.

Space tourism could be great fun. If you have stations or bases, they could be requested destinations, as well as the planets and moons.

Alternately, they could request to be as far away from any establishments as possible. Or want to stay on the base/station long term.

Requests/contracts would work best if they were relevant to where your space program is up to, this would add a lot to immersion.

If you've only done a few flights to the Mun, then there wouldn't be many wanting to trust you to take then to the Joolian moons.**

You'll get more Mun science requests, and maybe a few requests to put things in orbit.

But, if you have bases and stations throughout the Kerbol system, and a very good track record when it comes to getting home safely, you would have a lot more scientists and tourists wanting to go to distant places.

For choosing contracts, some types of missions would need to be accepted before you can do them, -payload and tourist. Others could just be there, waiting for you to fulfil certain criteria- science, sample request, etc. (You can always give them the dust you collected last time, but a tourist needs to be there before launch.)

There would also need to be a button for clearing away contracts you don't want.

Tasks like this could either be done as missions of their own, or as aspects of missions you are already planing.

They'd interact with things you've done on your own, validating them.

They could be semi-randomly generated, combined for complexity, and shouldn't run out.

And, they don't push the payer down any set path, but add extra things the player can choose to do.

Now, if career mode was set up with contracts like that, that would be a game worth playing!

**Yeah, I know kerbals are desperate to explore space. But those ones have probably already signed up to be crew.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Tw1

[UberFuber]

I'm not opposed to contracts, but I really feel they should things that you could tack on to other missions, rather than things that you have to do on their own.

That was my intention. The contracts/missions do not require you launch a rocket just for them. You could accept several, and either do them at a later time and/or do several of them during the same launch. For example, a tourist wants to go to Duna as part of his stop and a scientist want some data from Duna, player can accept both missions and kill two birds with one rocket.

For example, Science requests could be nice and simple.

If you're sending a probe to Duna anyway, and some scientist is politely asking for data from Ike, you could make some modifications and do a flyby. Then, with a few clicks back on Kerbin, you can send the data to him/her for appraisal.

Then, you get a little boost to your funds from their organisation.

Payload delivery could be fun, but it really only makes sense for things within the kerbin planetary system. Why would commercial interests have a use for something near Duna? Most tasks relevant to the other planets would be more likely fall into the science category, apart from perhaps setting up remote science equipment for long term use.

Perhaps part of the mission could involve designing the satellite for approval- personally, I imagine KSC as the only institution on Kerbin that actually builds space things.

The original reason for payload delivery is that it's considered a relatively low tiered missions. You just have to get the stuff there, and unlike science, don't have to send anything back. Although you're right, most of the payload mission could fall under science missions (deliver instrument there, leave it alone).

The reason I didn't include satellite is that I don't want a mission to have a permanent effect on space. Parking a satellite would mean that space "debris" would start to pile up as you do more and more of those missions. The anomalies system I previously proposed was intended to reward player who maintain the satellite network. As applied here, some scientist could request for scientific data using the stock instruments at a certain location/altitude/biome. This means that if you already have a satellite/station there with the right instrument, you can simply retask it to finish the mission.

Space tourism could also work pretty simply. If you agree to take someone somewhere, they could just appear in the crewlist. They might have a slightly different icon, and a little info to remind you that they are a paying passenger, and not part of your crew.

Then it's simple, include him in the next trip to that location, return him, and get paid.

If you don't get him to the desired destination, he will be annoyed. Bad problems for you if you kill him.

Space tourism could be great fun. If you have stations or bases, they could be requested destinations, as well as the planets and moons.

Alternately, they could request to be as far away from any establishments as possible. Or want to stay on the base/station long term.

The reason for the original itinerary system for tourism is that I wanted different missions to present different challenge. Payload missions are the easiest, get stuff there and leave it there. Science missions are next, get stuff there and MAYBE have to take it back (or have enough power to transmit it back). Tourisms are the hardest, requiring a long-term plan for hitting mutliple planets.

Requests/contracts would work best if they were relevant to where your space program is up to, this would add a lot to immersion.

If you've only done a few flights to the Mun, then there wouldn't be many wanting to trust you to take then to the Joolian moons.**

You'll get more Mun science requests, and maybe a few requests to put things in orbit.

But, if you have bases and stations throughout the Kerbol system, and a very good track record when it comes to getting home safely, you would have a lot more scientists and tourists wanting to go to distant places.

I agree. The missions/contracts generation should look at your "accomplishments". Although it would be nice if, say, the contract system could try to "push" you a little with some incentives (again, predicating on the original idea that player have multiple contracts available to choose from and all are optional, so player don't get stuck with too-difficult contract). For example, if player have only been to Mun (landed someone there), a contract might pop-up requesting something to be done on Minimus with some bonuses in the rewards.

For choosing contracts, some types of missions would need to be accepted before you can do them, -payload and tourist. Others could just be there, waiting for you to fulfil certain criteria- science, sample request, etc. (You can always give them the dust you collected last time, but a tourist needs to be there before launch.)

There would also need to be a button for clearing away contracts you don't want.

Tasks like this could either be done as missions of their own, or as aspects of missions you are already planing.

They'd interact with things you've done on your own, validating them.

They could be semi-randomly generated, combined for complexity, and shouldn't run out.

And, they don't push the payer down any set path, but add extra things the player can choose to do.

That was my original intent. The contracts are basically something you accomplish in one of your mission, doesn't have to be a mission themselves. Heck, it would be fun if there could be a sort of internal tracking of how much credits you earned per mission (sort of like it tracking you how much science you earned in your last mission).

Heh, I could just imagine Scott Manley go for the "accept all contracts available, finish them with just 1 launch".