Contract balance

[skyace65]

Just a general discussion thread specifically about contracts and changes you want to see with them. NOT suggestions for new contracts.

several of my main concerns right now with contracts

-engines need to be activated at a certain altitude/area, you can't fly them there. It's annoying and some of the restrictions are ludicrus. One contract told me i have to activate an engine within 300m, and the contract also wants me to be going around 420m/s....(it was a 1 star)

-speed restrictions. minimum I'm fine with, but do we really need a maximum speed limit?

-Spalsh down testing. I'm fine with it. But for the love of god get rid of whatever causes parts to disappear in water. I've had stuff attached to the command pod go missing i need to test, plus with emphasis on recovery I want all my parts that survive to get recovered.

[AlexanderB]

You *can* fly engines there, if you activate them by action group. It even works if you manually re-insert an empty stage and just activate an already active stage.

The rest I just write up to "challenge". Then again, I read the contracts and skip the ones that pay very little or are too far-out to easily complete.

[Noobton]

for the ones that requires speed like 400 m/s @ 300 m I take them as a puzzle, one solution I found is to shut down engines at the right height and then activate the stage at the right height and right speed... doesn't really make much sense but this is Kerbal after all

[adge]

I see why Squad put in the parameters for testing: I'm sure that in reality, when experimental builds and parts are being put through their paces, the engineers, technicians and designers behind the builds will have a list of certain parameters they want to see fulfilled during the test. Granted, some of the in-game ones are a little head-scratching, but you're under no obligation to accept the contract

[Kerbart]

Spalsh down testing. I'm fine with it. But for the love of god get rid of whatever causes parts to disappear in water. I've had stuff attached to the command pod go missing i need to test, plus with emphasis on recovery I want all my parts that survive to get recovered.

You can actually see the ocean from the launch pad; getting there requires an apoapsis of 200m, max. From there it's just a matter of using parachutes to slow down the impact.

Also, no one ever said that it's possible to get a 100% recovery rate on every mission.

[Dunbaratu]

I have noticed an increase in the level of ludicrousness in my rocket designs because of First Contract. I end up designing rockets in stupid ways in order to satisfy a secondary contract's requirement whilst on the way to satisfying the main one I care about. For example, trying to have a rocket that slows down to only 300 m/s as high as 20,000m, and then speeds back up again to get the rest of the way to orbit.

I think the random factors can be bounded a bit better to make the contracts a bit more sane.

[Ohls]

Like someone mentioned, you can activate an engine with action groups or by clicking it. Then just hitting the stage at the right moment to still get the contract fulfillment. Not sure if this should be considered a bug, or if it's just the way squad choose to authenticate parameters of the contracts.

I also have to chime in on the random factors. I actually like them! Having them restricted to normal acsent and decsent speeds in given altitudes would make them a lot more boring if you ask me. Most of us can build a properly functioning rocket that sticks to a "normal" ascent route. Just sticking parts to a typically built rocket to get the contract would just make it repetetive. Having odd values for the contracts makes them fun and challenging!

[cpast]

For me, the whole *point* of contracts is to get me to do things I wouldn't have otherwise done. I don't need encouragement to play the way I've always played; contracts work well when I would *not* have done what they're asking normally.

[Snillum101]

I've discovered that you don't always need to use the staging option to complete the contract.

I had a contract to test a certain engine in orbit. I made a SSTO using that engine as my main one. Once I was at the correct orbit I was able to right click the engine and press "Test Part" or something like that. That completed the contract just fine. I never needed to stage with it.

[hcalves]

I've enjoyed the random, sometimes almost impossible requirements. Makes for fun challenges! I had to design a totally insane rocket to test a Rockomax BACC at 30 km/300 m/s. Another time I had to test a landing gear in orbit (WTF right?).

The *only* adjustment I would do is have the "Test part" available as an action group. Badly needed, hopefully in a minor patch!

[Frank327]

I was offered a contract to test launch stabilizers.... on the surface of the Mun. Is that even possible?

[cpast]

I don't think so; launch clamps can't fly. That's kind of a special case, though; every other part can fly with the ship, so can in principle be tested anywhere.

[Kegereneku]

A few remark from a few hours of play.

- I really hope SQUAD won't just randomize everything like that eternally, especially the text. What the point of trying to make significant block of text if its content is nonsensical or repetitive.

We know Kerbal engineering is crazy, but I don't like it "stupid". More like bold and courageous.

- There was a(many) threads long ago about how "progress / contract" should be, I'm still of the opinion that good Developers must GUIDE the players through coherent millstone and not just get "lazy" (or work for nothing) making a

- Like other, I'm not against "activation restriction" but we should also have occasion to test an engine by flying through, without restarting it.

- To avoid impossible contract like "testing the Launch Stabilizer in orbit" some parts shouldn't be able to be part of a contract in place they don't belong (like a LV-909 activated in the water, even if that one is possible).

- Which bring me to how you are encouraged to NOT actually test Experimental parts (because you'll lose them if you do), making it more interesting to refuse a contract for a Skipper engine until you get one you can't accidentally accomplish so you can use it.

Lastly, I still hope SQUAD plans to redo entirely the Tech-tree, it's kind of a pain in the ass to not have early access to basic structural parts, or ladders. As if those were harder to design than engines. Unmanned vehicle is also a big parts of space exploration.

Worse is the science part, since you'll be forced to go back everywhere to grind all the science. What is the Processing lab even worth for so soon (before docking port or rover part) ? Or at all, I've never found an use for it except on a rover (again with the grindy nature of science).

That all from me, I hope "Scope Complete" is many rework and fundamental change away. (and I also hope we get asked to put in orbit satellite, pre-made or not)

[cpast]

For experimental parts, they seem to have gotten rid of the originally proposed constraint that you only got a limited supply. It'd be nice if that were added back in, to make it so you only got, say, 10 of the parts -- that would make it so you had to either test them or be very very careful.

Launch stabilizers will never be given a testing contract when not landed (absent bugs). The part module that makes it subject to tests (ModuleTestSubject) has 4 location categories - surface, ocean, atmosphere, and space. The clamp is only eligible for surface test contracts; that particular part can't be tested anywhere but on Kerbin's surface in particular, but it's the only such part. It's set to never be assigned for test contracts in ocean, atmosphere, or space.