Funds, science, unlocks, progression, etc...

[Hyomoto]

Let's talk about KSP!

I'm pretty happy with the contract system mechanically, and I think a lot of people are. The variety is nice, the goals are interesting and can actually require a bit of thought. However, it does little to actually affect how the game is played by any measurable standard. We have reputation, funds and science now, and yet science is still the only currency that matters. Let me clarify, when science was added it became the thing to do because it was necessary. You need to gather science to unlock new technology in the pursuit of more science and technology. That had an immediate and appreciable impact on the game.

This is because science is something you always need and are always in pursuit ofâ€â€until you unlock your last node. Funds should then ideally be a limitation on what you can do with the technology you currently have, limiting your access, so when the importance of science tapers off, the importance of funds is maintained. Funding as it exists should limit what you can presently do with your technology, and be the reason you do contracts. If I want to build a space station, or take an anomaly-finding trip to the Mun, sweet. That comes out of pocket. So, I'll need capital that I raise by doing contracts. To some extent this system is in place, except advances and rewards are large enough to make it quickly redundant. The advances are usually enough to pay for the mission itself, so some major mismanagement is needed to drain your funds.

It would be fairly easy to write off the issue with funds being reverting. Something go awry? Didn't have enough fuel? Ship built badly? Revert. Mind you, Squad may address thisâ€â€if each rocket you send up costs money, you might find the funding a bit tighter after a few pancakes (my favorite is staging issues). So for now, it is just something you can consciously decide on. However, the biggest issue here is that this would only benefit veterans and punish new players. Even a 'balanced' system has two ends: too easy and no one benefits; too hard and new players are disadvantaged. No matter which you choose, in both an experienced player will have a more successful and cost effective program. This is why funds don't quite work outâ€â€successful players will always amass funds, treat it like a high score and quickly forget they even exist. This isn't exactly helped when contracts are almost impossible to fail.

After all, currently you get so much time and I almost understand the generosity. The game has no idea what you are doing, is that rocket for a mission or just an experiment? Who knows? So it just checks if you've accomplished something. That might work, if not for tests on the launchpad that allow years to do, pay advances and supply the parts you haven't unlocked. So by now I hope to have painted a fairly clear pictureâ€â€it isn't the systems do nothing, just that they don't actively engage the player, or they do so very passively. Heck, we can literally ignore reputation. It has a meter that no one really knows what it does or cares. It really ties up this criticism with a neat little bow: science does something, funds barely do anything, and reputation might do nothing at all, and to top it off there is one overlooked resource that is never even usedâ€â€time.

Believe me, it isn't 'broke'

First, you need to understand the foundation of my opinionâ€â€sandbox already exists and no reason can encourage career mode to duplicate it. These systems aren't badâ€â€just currently underused. We have all the pieces, these systems can be stitched together into quite a game. As it stands they don't because career is just a gated sandbox, with science as the only gate key. We have no failure conditions, can do whatever we want with little restrictive progression and no enforceable goals. Plainly writtenâ€â€there are no game mechanics; despite having funds, reputation, science and time to play with. So, it couldn't hurt to examine some changes, right?

I mentioned funding: we amass it and quickly ignore it. We could tune it out but, like I explained, the veteran player will always get ahead of the system. As long as money in is greater than money out, there is no solution to the problem. Well if the goal is to keep engaging the player, you must ensure they are rewarded and curb the ability to defeat the system. A simple solution would be a yearly funding budget, based on reputation and divided into quarters. Every quarter you lose unspent funds, and receive your quarterly budget. We eliminate hoarding funds, there is no exponential growth curve or micromanagement, and it uses low frequency punishment and rewards. In fact, it has all the problems of the current system minus two, you are encouraged to spend rather than hoard, and you don't punish new players. It also creates a positive feedback loop as each month you essentially 'reset', keeping you engaged with the game and your funds since if tuned right, you shouldn't be able to just get ahead of them. They limit you while also driving you to act with them.

Funds are inseparable from contracts so we'll also discuss them. Assume reputation is used to calculate your yearly budget, we get nowhere without snipping the cash flow from contracts. Once again, a simple solution is not to generate new contracts daily, instead each quarter could bring funding and a new round of contracts. But, since they aren't mandatory anyways, what about more interesting rewards? Reputation is obvious, bonus science perhaps, but augments to a quarterly budget, or access to parts you haven't unlocked could work too. Well, that wouldn't make sense right now I suppose. A major imbalance in KSP is really just the use, or lack thereof, of time. Everything is instantâ€â€recovery, launching, building, researching. Contracts really are hard to fail, some can be completed in a literal in-game minute! Time is a resource that is just not utilized. Why not? It's limitations could easily be adapted for gameplay.

I'm not talking assembly, what passes while you are in the VAB is fine. But, you may remember when every part told you how many you had. So, at one time you might have had to purchase parts to build your rockets. Let's pretend then that you did buy your parts, just for a moment, and add time. If research and manufacturing took time, contract failure dates might work. After research, manufacturing and assembly you might actually eat up a few months. This could also allow for new types of rewards: give me cash and everything instantly, cash is the only thing I need or want. But if parts take time to build, and I still need cash to fuel, launch and recover craft; I want both. So, a contract for parts might be just what I'm looking for, and recovery suddenly serves another important purpose. Instead of getting cash back, those parts go back on the shelf. This is just a rudimentary idea, it has plenty of unanswered questions about timing and infrastructure but the point is simple: time could easily be used to augment gameplay.

You might notice I don't address failure. I just don't personally think KSP requires an explicit 'game over'. Missions fail, and what each person considers failure is different. My suggestions are merely for structuring gameplay to engage the player between rocket launches. The point of all this is in career mode you should be playing a game. You need goals, restrictions, successes and failures. I once again stress that sandbox is all about launching rockets without restrictions or penalties, and as it stands science and contracts don't restrict that. So I really don't understand the desire for a career mode that doesn't add structure, features the player can actively ignore don't warrant a dedicated mode.

This is a bit of a 'living post', so I'll update it as time goes on. Feel free to comment if the urge takes you.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hyomoto

[Beeman]

From my understanding, the contracts and funding weren't really meant as a means of progressing your space program. That's what the science is for, so new players have fewer parts to choose from and can learn the basics of rocket design a lot quicker do to far fewer variables in part combinations. Contracts, if I'm remembering this correctly, were designed to help guide players to various goals or achievements.

Now, it'd be nice if there were some options when creating a new space program(career save). Things like...ironman, where you're not allowed to quicksave or revert your flights, sliders to allow you to choose a multiplier for how much science and currency you earn per task that would grant such rewards...among other things(life support, reentry heat, etc..). We've already got the beginnings of such a system by having three options when creating a new game. They only need to expand that new game menu a bit to be like the advanced world options in Space Engineers or something similar. But yes, the current(1x) values for both science and funding income need a bit of fine-tuning...which they'll undoubtedly get since they're both still relatively new.

I don't know, but for some people, the game could use a little more (optional)challenge without needing to resort to mods.

[Hyomoto]

Options isn't the answer, structure is. If people are actually so worried about being confused or overloaded, structure is the answer to that. Giving them MORE options is going to lead to MORE confusion, especially if they are optional. What does hard mode do? Do I want permadeath? What options do other people use? What options are right for me? Instead, what if your first action on starting a new game was to accept a contract that gives you the pieces to build your first rocket? Now the player has learned they can accept contracts, and that they get things for doing so. The very first contract could literally be to fire a rocket off. Human ingenuity will take care of the rest.

Right now you can literally remove funds and reputation from the game and it will play the exact same. It's not just optional, it's nothing.

[Kegereneku]

I'm supporting myself the idea of a fixed budget per time period that you can increase by accomplishing contracts.

The leading idea is that available money would be mostly correlated to your reputation but crashing ten rocket wouldn't diminish your budget unless there was a reputation-penalty mentioned in case of failure.

Realistically there was many failure in the space industry, but that is acceptable as long as there was no crew and more if it is experimental.

And I think it also address the "revert to VAB" conundrum this way.

I don't think we have to forbid it's use. It is an important anti-frustration feature. And the problem will solve itself once you need to plan more complex mission involving more ship where you cannot "revert" anymore.

As you said, I think KSP need to take time as a gameplay parameter which would lead to planning several launch in parallel.

[gozzle]

On the issue of breaking accountability by Reverting, it seems to me the problem is this:

*It's important to feel the pain for botched launches and dead Kerbonauts, otherwise the reputation and funds mechanics are neutered.

*It's also important to be able to try things out and experiment without running your space program into the ground.

I'd suggest that a good way to address this would be to have two kinds of launch: Mission and Test. A test launch would be free, both in risk and in money, but wouldn't persist or allow you to fulfil contracts or gain science. A mission launch would be final: any lost money or Kerbals are gone for good, but all money, science and contracts would count.

In general, I think the point you make is a good one: currently there's no bite to the contract system. I'm more or less playing exactly as I did before the update now.

[Hyomoto]

I'm supporting myself the idea of a fixed budget per time period that you can increase by accomplishing contracts.

The leading idea is that available money would be mostly correlated to your reputation but crashing ten rocket wouldn't diminish your budget unless there was a reputation-penalty mentioned in case of failure.

Realistically there was many failure in the space industry, but that is acceptable as long as there was no crew and more if it is experimental.

If you are given a fixed budget at fixed intervals, even if trivial, you are psychologically encouraged to save money rather than spend it. The desire to hold back on spending to get just a little more is constant. On the other hand, if the flow of money is too generous, you'll simply ignore it. A 'reusable' budget empowers spending because you know there will be more, and you'll lose what you don't use. A quarterly budget doesn't penalize spending, micromanaging and waiting is not the goal, and the yearly budget enforces exactly what you've pointed out, the player shouldn't be afraid to make mistakes. I believe in changing the budget slowly rather than promoting spamming contracts to max it out so you spend less time thinking about it and just play the game. The rewards and penalties are small, but still enough to drive the player. Funds shouldn't be for saving, they should be for spending and empowering the player should be the goal.

A little reputation for being 'under' budget could be a useful stopgap incentive for players who want a "atta boy" for being extra frugal.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hyomoto