Contracts, Missions, and Reputation. Am I the only one find this questionable?

[Sokar408]

Alright so I have been doing it again. You know that thing where you read the forums, post by post and everywhere you see reinforces an internal argument you have had with yourself for a while.

Let me be the first (in this post ) to say that the ARM has added extremely keep stuff to the game, and for the most part I like the direction the game is headed...

When it comes to contracts, there is something that bothers me a lot though. First, we got science, which I out of ignorance thought was meant to bring a bit of goals and progression to the game, when it fact it acts more like a "guide" for beginners. This is fine to some extend even its a bit sad, considering the potential the premise of gather science has.

But now the contract system. In some posts where people discuss what they want and don't want, it seems clear that the reason people usually don't want something, is because of exactly how pointless it would be. Take the example of satellite contracts. This is complete conjecture, but lets assume a mission would look like this: "Build a vessel with x specific parts, and bring it to stable orbit around y planet"

What is the problem with this mission? Well for starters satellites in the main game has no point. With no signal relaying required, satellites are pointless beyond the objective of putting it up there in the first place. Lets take another example. Say a mission wants you to go to Duna, and collect x different science experiments, and transmit/deliver the data back home. Now we are back to the guide thing again, which is something the science system already offers, except assuming that there'll be money/reputation/some form of currency involved, we have just added a a different layer guiding. If the goal is to make the game easier for newcomers, and if its done right this is a great thing, as it allows those who doesn't know the game well enough yet, to be guided in an interesting way.

So why do I think this is a problem? Well considering what the game is, I personally find it hardly doubtful that any large portion of players who would actually be interested in playing this game in the first place, would not also have the mind and interesting in figuring the game out. This might a completely faulty assumption on my behave though. I base this assumption on the fact that this game takes at least a bit of brains to find interesting, which is usually accompanied by a certain level of nerdiness, and that is exactly what is needed to "master" it. Beyond that "nerds" tend to find the figuring out portion of stuff part of the fun, not the guiding part.

So if the contract system is actually meant to interest the people who actually play the game, then to me it seems we have a problem. As it stands every mission is pretty much going to a completely self contained thing. We have no life support to manage, and we have probes that use electricity. Thus we have no need to EVER really use probes. We have no need for signal relaying, so building orbital infrastructure is pointless beyond RP reasons or personal goals. We have no resource system, which would link up with the life support and electricity system, as well as maybe even construction, so infrastructure of any kind is rather pointless.

So it would seem that the game offers a sandbox, with extremely limited synergistic options, thus having no use for a missioning system/currency system. This brings me back around to the problem that I see with contracts as it is now, and that is it offers nothing. Progression via science has already been implemented as a guide, whether then any actual progression, so using contracts to limit your crafts through budgets/rep/whatever is not interesting for science progression, and due to lack of any other type of progression, doesn't offer anything of actual value to the playerbase as it is. Granted I don't know their plan, but I don't see any easy way around it either, though admittedly this could be due to lack of imagination on my part. They seem insistent on keeping the game at the level where personal goals and creativity is all you got, so it baffles me, that they are making it a priority to implement a missioning and currency system which will, due the former, be nothing but a space equivalent of "go kill x amount of bears, then return for y amount of cash/rep/huh".

All of that said, this is not meant as hate. KSP is an amazing game, with an amazing community, and I'd have gotten my moneys worth even if what we had right now was all got. It is simply a voice of concern/a plead for clarity. I'm sure the absolutely amazing modding scene will take the system and make it applicable in combination with mods that already fix many of the problems mentioned above, but the contradicting design directions has me confused.

I'd love to hear other peoples opinion this

[EtherDragon]

I think it's premature to armchair quarterback what Squad is working on for .24. They are also making a game that they would enjoy playing - I highly doubt that they'll just throw any old thing in there.

I like career mode, it's my favorite mode to play now. Sure, at this point, it's easy for me - but it's still fun for me to be limited on what my space program can do, and have to earn my way to flying fortresses in the stars. I, for one, like games that have contracts and "imposed" goals - so long as I get to choose how to go about accomplishing them.

You seem to want a game where you have to master building a complicated communication network before you can send your manned mission to Jool, which is fine - but I don't think that's the game that Squad is building.

Rocket Science isn't easy, and the on-ramp needs to be accessible to a broad audience for this title to be as successful as it can be. Having too many conflicting and arbitrary goals is bad for game design. Think of the great sandbox games from before and see what made them so successful: Roller-Coaster Tycoon had an open world (theme park) and allowed you to do whatever - but you had to complete missions, perform R&D, and design your own awesome Roller-Casters, and theme-park.

Also, there is a difference between in-game complexity, and apparent complexity. With in-game complexity you just have tons of stuff going on, which can get confusing. We already have to build our own rockets, perform our own missions, locate the science, and return with it to Kerbin. I think contracts, reputation, and science are just about the right amount of added in-game complexity in the end - any more and it will be too intimidating to most people; KSP doesn't have to be only for nerds. After all, the main goal of KSP is to introduce a new generation to Rocket Science, and Orbital Mechanics - making it a came with career mode means that people accidentally learn these concepts while playing a game.

Apparent complexity can be easily added with contracts, flavor text, news flashes, etc - a lot of which don't actually make the game more complex, but make the world seem more complete and complex. Contracts to put up communication satellites or expose a special experiment to "Mun Radiation" adds to the apparent complexity without arbitrary in-game complexity. It seems like communication satellites are useful, although they aren't required other than to generate income (and rep).

Main thing is - betting your horse is going to lose the race before it's born is never a good idea.

Edited April 2, 2014 by EtherDragon

[Sokar408]

I think it's premature to armchair quarterback what Squad is working on for .24. They are also making a game that they would enjoy playing - I highly doubt that they'll just throw any old thing in there.

I like career mode, it's my favorite mode to play now. Sure, at this point, it's easy for me - but it's still fun for me to be limited on what my space program can do, and have to earn my way to flying fortresses in the stars. I, for one, like games that have contracts and "imposed" goals - so long as I get to choose how to go about accomplishing them.

You seem to want a game where you have to master building a complicated communication network before you can send your manned mission to Jool, which is fine - but I don't think that's the game that Squad is building.

Rocket Science isn't easy, and the on-ramp needs to be accessible to a broad audience for this title to be as successful as it can be. Having too many conflicting and arbitrary goals is bad for game design. Think of the great sandbox games from before and see what made them so successful: Roller-Coaster Tycoon had an open world (theme park) and allowed you to do whatever - but you had to complete missions, perform R&D, and design your own awesome Roller-Casters, and theme-park.

Also, there is a difference between in-game complexity, and apparent complexity. With in-game complexity you just have tons of stuff going on, which can get confusing. We already have to build our own rockets, perform our own missions, locate the science, and return with it to Kerbin. I think contracts, reputation, and science are just about the right amount of added in-game complexity in the end - any more and it will be too intimidating to most people; KSP doesn't have to be only for nerds.

Apparent complexity can be easily added with contracts, flavor text, news flashes, etc - a lot of which don't actually make the game more complex, but make the world seem more complete and complex. Contracts to put up communication satellites or expose a special experiment to "Mun Radiation" adds to the apparent complexity. It seems like communication satellites are a good thing, although they aren't required other than to generate income (and rep).

Main thin is - betting your horse is going to lose the race before it's born is never a good idea.

Career mode is by far also my prefered way of playing, though I do mod the game quite a bit.

As for wanting to build complex infrastructure before attempting a mission, that is not what I want at all. However make it beneficiary to do so doesn't seem like a bad idea. Making ralying a thing, would only need you needed it for probes and transmission, and adding relaying is necessary for and thus let the player pick wouldn't be very hard. And even with this, you could still easily stick some life stupport on a rocket, and go manned to Jool. That doesn't make the game more complicated, it just gives you a degree of management. In this respect making probes cheaper then manned crafts, would provide a balance between doing things man vs unmanned and lets the game reward you for whatever choice you picked.

Like you said, we don't know actually where this is headed, which is why, as I mentioned, this is merely me voicing a concern, rather then me critiquing.

[Caelib]

We don't really know how Contracts is going to work so there's no point in speculating whether or not what they create will be fun/work. At the end of the day, you have Sandbox so if you don't like it then you wont have to play it.

[KerbMav]

I also do not know, but have a picture in my head where KSP might be headed:

If parts are going to cost money, then this money has to come from somewhere. A developer will have to make a choice if the player can ruin himself financially in the game to a point he cannot recover from or if there is a steady trickle of income (unlikely as Squad does not want to introduce time-based progression and the like) or some thinge the player still can do to earn money. Here I am waiting for what they will come up with. And we also still do not know if every part we use in building a rocket will cost something or only unlocking parts in a node first bought with science.

As of now I see three ways how money could be earned in KSP:

1. achieving certain goals in the game, orbiting planets, manned missions to planets etc. being rewarded by ... government or whatever

2. selling science by exchanging science points for money (at a reasonable rate)

3. offering missions for money

Selling science keeps gathering science points usefull even after unlocking the tech tree.

The goal of a mission (satellites) not making any sense for the player does not invalidate it as a possible mission in the game, maybe it is a weather satellite.

The OP seems to prefer a sandbox style of game and that is what the sandbox mode is for.

[Xaiier]

I don't really have anything to contribute to this discussion as I dislike career mode but I do believe that Maxmaps said sometime on the ARM stream that there would be a game over screen as a part of .24's updates to career mode

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I am in somewhat of agreement however I myself had made my own Science tree (for example); I set the rates going up a tad logarithmicly and I am talking hundres of science; it is pretty crazy in stock the amount you need, but adding modded parts, more resources to gather, life support - the mods are what is making this game; while vanilla is nice, it is the mods that make it seem realistic...

I am not even sure but I think Remote Tech tech forces relay satellites; first time I saw it on the map I was in awe - kool stuff goin on.

I know I know the DEVS should be doing this; and honestly I dont know how the modders do it; but that is what is making the Science Career game for me now...

Now if we can only get 64bit Unity or they use a different engine to make this game...

Cdr Zeta

[Streetwind]

Frankly I consider this discussion far more pointless than the feature discussed at the moment. Not only do we not know how the game systems will be implemented (and I do mean the actual mechanics, not the style of content), but as far as we currently know the .24 implementation will be preliminary and completely optional to the player. Rowsdower has all but outright stated in one of his hundreds of posts that currency and reputation is coming at a later time, not in .24. Thus you will be free to play career while completely ignoring the mission system if you do not like it after trying it out. Also, that will be the best time to offer feedback on how the feature needs to change in order to play well once it becomes required for progress.

That discussion should then be held in the Suggestions forum, where specific thread tags for feature discussions can be used in a place that is actually browsed for feedback by the devs, and not General Discussion, which is not.

Right now however, all you are basically saying is "We know maybe 10% of the whole picture, and that 10% on its own looks pointless, ergo the entire feature must be pointless." You have valid concerns and mean well for the game (and I'm probably wording this more harshly than you deserve, though I'm not sure how to put it better). But you just don't have a basis on which to make an accurate assessment of the feature. Instead you're inferring your own interpretation of extremely limited information, and that likely will match neither the finished product nor the development intent behind it (much less the already announced continued work on the feature in .25).

I don't really have anything to contribute to this discussion as I dislike career mode but I do believe that Maxmaps said sometime on the ARM stream that there would be a game over screen as a part of .24's updates to career mode

And I do believe that he never said anything about .24 in that context. It is highly unlikely that all the necessary systems will be in place so soon.

EDIT: Source on "Budgets will not be in .24"

Edited April 2, 2014 by Streetwind

[KerbMav]

Hm, so I was actually quite close.

Thank you, I missed this interview until now.

[Daid]

First, we got science, which I out of ignorance thought was meant to bring a bit of goals and progression to the game, when it fact it acts more like a "guide" for beginners. This is fine to some extend even its a bit sad, considering the potential the premise of gather science has.

I have to disagree with you here. I got into KSP when the Mun was new. (Some might remember, no SOI switches visible on the map, trust when you see a mun rising over kerbal and hope for the best)

I'm not a great player. But I really really enjoy the science system, even if I can build a rocket with the basic parts with can go to the Mun, land, goto Minmus, land, and get safely back to Kerbin.

It gives me goals in a semi-sandbox. I quite often restart a new carrier mode (and do so with every update). It adds a nice challenge and reward system to the game.

[Guest]

They seem insistent on keeping the game at the level where personal goals and creativity is all you got, so it baffles me, that they are making it a priority to implement a missioning and currency system which will, due the former, be nothing but a space equivalent of "go kill x amount of bears, then return for y amount of cash/rep/huh".

What would you like to see, a rigid progression where every move is planned out for you, making maybe one choice every so often ("Duna or Eve?")? That sounds just as bad as "go kill x and bring its head back for y." I think a rigid progression would be the death of career mode; you'd be able to play it once and it offers nothing for older players of thr game. Personally I hope SQUAD keeps individual goals and creativity a viable option in career mode because the last thing I want to do is have to explore everywhere in-between before building a station around Eeloo under budget.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

For me, theres really nothing to the game besides the mods (or) the roleplaying. I don't build asparagus staged monstrosities, drop NERVAS in the ocean, I always make sure there's at least one Hitchiker can for every two kerbals.....

[Alymon]

It would be nice if missions/contracts were completely optional and gave benefits like enhanced fuel efficiency or capacity. Something where doing them would make it easier for you to build rockets that could do more, but wouldn't hinder you from doing anything.