Contracts and the expansion of career mode.

[Travisfv]

So I wanted to ask you guys and gals, what do you think career mode will become when the contract system is released?

1. Will we be flying mission to mission based solely on what contracts we have taken or been awarded?

2. Will money be appropriated per contract and then we use that to build, or will the previous contracts funding be used to complete the next contract? Contract bonuses perhaps as a reward for a successful mission?

3. Do you want to see a monthly stipend from the Kerbal Government? Not a lot, but enough that overtime we can fund personal missions?

4. Will those "Personal/sandbox" missions disappear?

I personally want to still be able to do a mission for my own agenda sometimes, because I believe the world we create in career mode will be vast and interesting. It would not longer be our own creation, but a literal space program that is almost evolving and expanding beyond your own intention simply by the nature of the contracts we take.

I'd like to see the player be payed first for the contract as well, and coming under budget will net them a profit, and a bonus for the mission's completion which we could use on the more complex missions or to fund that trip to Duna we always wanted. In that as well doing missions on your own, being tracked in an invisible progress bar, should net you funding from the Kerbal Government. I didn't get a contract to go to Duna, but I did and we returned, thereby funding has been expanded.

What do you all want to see in the new career mode?

[JimmyAgent007]

The way i see it...

1. Not if we dont want too.

2. Maybe yes to all three points.

3. No idea but maybe if you arnt doing well?

4. Nope. They stated somewhere that you can totally ignore contracts if you wanted.

[Liowen]

I have long thought that the contract system will have a set amount of money you could earn, but your parts cost for the craft will be subtracted at the end (IE you could get 1 million kerbucks but if your craft cost 500k kerbucks you only get the remaining 500k kerbucks). This will mean you could run the risk of doing a mission that could cost you money from your own pocket, like using all the new big parts to launch a small Mun lander would be most likely a bad thing. However there could be "bonus" monetary reward if you do more than the required contract such as; your contract is to do a low orbit of Mun, but you landed and returned a surface sample so bonuses for both the landing and sample (but not as much as the contract to do those things). As far as the sandbox game I do not think they will be in that mode, and I also believe they have stated that contracts will be an option for the player to do even in career mode (also not sure if you can do them as you wish or once you start they are part of the save and have to done from that point forward).

*WARNING*

*kerbuck is not the name for the currency in the game just one used for the example*

[regex]

4. Will those "Personal/sandbox" missions disappear?

So far SQUAD seems to want to keep that style of gameplay and it sounds like contracts will just be things you tack on to an existing missions; objectives to complete while you're out there. The game will also apparently pick contracts that are relevant to your current game, so if you've been to Duna you'll get more contracts appropriate to Duna but not Moho, for instance. There have been statements regarding currencies and how they will be exchangeable, meaning you could potentially fund you entire career through gathering science or by taking more traditional cues from the contracts.

Now, all that is hearsay gathered from dev notes and streams, but it sounds like SQUAD wants to keep it a sandbox-style game, which is good because a railroadey mission system would be doing a discredit to KSP.

[O-Doc]

I would like to see the career mode play out like this, whether it dos or not is anyone's guess.

1. You have a company which does business with a space agency, maybe even more than one. The space agency supplies a yearly budget and a list of recommended objectives. Your budget grows or shrinks depending on how well you achieve exploration/science goals. As you move up the tech tree budgets will scale accordingly.

2. Alongside a main space program you are offered corporate contracts which can be either single or multiple mission/objectives. So, they are mini campaigns which don't fall through when your first rocket on the launch pad explodes. You could be offered a retainer/loan for the contract and a completion payment when finished.

The idea with the corporate contracts would be to help supplement your program budget to help you test and build craft, launch assets into space and other infrastructural projects associated with participating in the space program. This is your sandbox type of experience in career mode. If you do well, your role in the program becomes more efficient and profitable. If not, you have to go back to basics to satisfy your agency masters and scrap for smaller, easier contracts. There could be some type of reputation variable to control this aspect.

The major issues with this is the type of lose condition. You would have to have a minimum budget floor which the player knows they can always count on if things start to go pear shaped. Or, you could actually go bankrupt and lose the game... ...which would mean you would have to have a way o win the game.

It would also be interesting to see an idea like submitting proposals to the space agency and the rewarding of agency funding against that submission. "Hey, lets build a science base orbiting Jool, you know, for science."

[ArmchairGravy]

From what I understand .24 will not be implementing an economy, but merely implementing a contract system of "take part x to place y". The contract system will be purely optional.

It's going to be interesting to see how an actual economy gets implemented. Economies tend to be limiters. How is Squad going to couple limits to their very sandboxy career?

[JimmyAgent007]

wasnt .24 supposed to be the scope complete career? wouldnt they need money for that? maybe things have changed. Anyone got a quote from a dev about this?

Edited May 1, 2014 by JimmyAgent007

[Grumman]

What do you all want to see in the new career mode?

I'd like to see another tab added to the hangars for unique mission components. As you play the game, parts and subassemblies would be added and removed from this tab, each with their own mission requirements.

For example, as you play the game you might be given a single instance of a prototype subassembly consisting of a jet engine, jet fuel tank and air intake. You have a fortnight to put it on a vehicle and run it at at least 400 m/s for at least 15 seconds. If you do, you complete the mission and you get a reward - it could be money, it could be an early unlock of the jet engine, it could be science. If you don't, or if you crash the prototype, the mission is failed.

[regex]

It's going to be interesting to see how an actual economy gets implemented. Economies tend to be limiters. How is Squad going to couple limits to their very sandboxy career?

They didn't seem to have any trouble limiting career with a tech tree, money and reputation should be fine. Contracts are looking to be a great goal-augmenter.

wasnt .24 supposed to be the scope complete carrier?

If you're asking about a scope-complete career, then no, no on ever said it'd done in 0.24.

[NecroBones]

I could be way off, but my suspicion is that some of the contracts may involve a budgetary limitation, in terms of the cost of the spacecraft, as one of the objectives. Still sandboxy, but gives you a reason to build small instead of MOAR BOOSTERS.

[[email protected]]

From what I understand .24 will not be implementing an economy, but merely implementing a contract system of "take part x to place y". The contract system will be purely optional.

It's going to be interesting to see how an actual economy gets implemented. Economies tend to be limiters. How is Squad going to couple limits to their very sandboxy career?

The Science system is a form of economy. I think the contracts will be great, and will open the door to great new mods.

[Scotius]

I think budgetary restrictions are going to be great way to teach us efficiency. As of now i'm taking a path of least resistance - i have about three types of tested and reliable launchers, and use them to lift everything. I do not bother with tailoring my rockets to the payload - if it weights more than 30 tons (which is maximum lift my medium launcher is capable), i slap it on the top of the biggest launcher (capable of wrestling 70+ tons to LKO). After money and economy will be added, i might not be able to afford more than two-three big launchers per fiscal year Which means i will have to come with simpler and cheaper launcher configurations. Or reuseability. If we will be able to recover spent money when we return most of the craft back to Kerbin, probe cores and parachutes might be in great demand

[[email protected]]

I think budgetary restrictions are going to be great way to teach us efficiency. As of now i'm taking a path of least resistance - i have about three types of tested and reliable launchers, and use them to lift everything. I do not bother with tailoring my rockets to the payload - if it weights more than 30 tons (which is maximum lift my medium launcher is capable), i slap it on the top of the biggest launcher (capable of wrestling 70+ tons to LKO). After money and economy will be added, i might not be able to afford more than two-three big launchers per fiscal year Which means i will have to come with simpler and cheaper launcher configurations. Or reuseability. If we will be able to recover spent money when we return most of the craft back to Kerbin, probe cores and parachutes might be in great demand

I'm actually considering attempting to make a mod once costs are implemented that has a second launchpad (large flat) behind KSC where you can purchase fuel for whatever craft is landed on it, instead of having to purchase tanks, tires, command seats, batteries etc just to refuel a craft you've brought back.

[Travisfv]

I'm actually considering attempting to make a mod once costs are implemented that has a second launchpad (large flat) behind KSC where you can purchase fuel for whatever craft is landed on it, instead of having to purchase tanks, tires, command seats, batteries etc just to refuel a craft you've brought back.

You could implement kerbal attachment system, or a create a new system with launch clamps that can be moved and reattached and can pump fuel back into the ship.

Even if only for craft that you can later remount onto the top of a new rocket.

Which gives me an idea to build a large crane.

[Vanamonde]

This discussion of the game's development has been moved to Development Discussions.

[LethalDose]

wasnt .24 supposed to be the scope complete career? wouldnt they need money for that? maybe things have changed. Anyone got a quote from a dev about this?

Like Regex said, there were no statements of "scope completion" in 0.24. They've merely stated that they hope to reach scope completion by the end of 2014. And "scope completion" could actually mean that the mechanics are complete, but the content isn't.

The contract system will be purely optional.

Yeah, they've said that the contract system will be completely optional, which got me thinking.

If they're implementing contracts as a game mechanic that can be totally ignored if players don't think it's fun...

Then why can't they implement resource mining as a game mechanic that can be totally ignored if players don't think it's fun?

Yeah, let's see how long it takes the mods to delete this post for bringing that up.

[Grumman]

Yeah, they've said that the contract system will be completely optional, which got me thinking.

If they're implementing contracts as a game mechanic that can be totally ignored if players don't think it's fun...

Then why can't they implement resource mining as a game mechanic that can be totally ignored if players don't think it's fun?

Because contracts are something that we know makes sense - there are things that are important enough per ton that people will pay to have them delivered to orbit. The only way it would not make sense is if space travel was so incredibly expensive that even, say, multi-billionaires wanting to send their ashes into space would baulk at the price.

Resource mining, on the other hand, is something that might not be able to break even - it is possible that it will always cost more fuel to mine, refine and transport the fuel than to just bring it from home.

[aeTIos]

Resource mining, on the other hand, is something that might not be able to break even - it is possible that it will always cost more fuel to mine, refine and transport the fuel than to just bring it from home.

That's a balancing issue. For example you can make it so that resource mining yields huge quantities of fuel per drilling unit, (ie 10000 units/day) for a 10000 kerbuck drilling unit, lasting at least 100 days. That'd give you a huge advantage over bringing the fuel from home, especially if you were to set up a base somewhere.