Science, Contracts, Funds, and Prestige in KSP

[darpavader]

So this is my two cents on how Science, Contracts, Funds, and Prestige should work within campaign mode in KSP.

Science

Science unlocks the dreams of the Kerbal scientists by unlocking potential parts on the tech tree. When you unlock the potential, you’ll get contracts to test new parts.

Contracts

Contracts would be broken down into three different types:

R&D. These would be the parts you’ve unlocked the potential for in your tech tree. These would cost a lot of funds to field the first time and would have zero or very little financial payback. The reward would be full access to develop the new part (but more funds would be needed after the R&D stage to bring the part into production.) More complex parts should require multiple tests, say test an engine on the ground, in the air, and in space before it can go to the next step.

Prestige. These contracts also would offer very little financial reward but would build up your reputation. Which over time would bring better commercial contracts (see below,) and would bring you a higher annual budget (again, see below.)

Commercial. These would be your money makers. Companies would ask you to put up weather satellites, GPS satellites, communication satellites, etc. These missions would have a very accurate altitude and orbit.

Funds

Funds would come from two sources:

Annual Budget. The higher your prestige, the higher your budget.

Commercial Contracts. (see above.)

Also everything should cost funds. The VAB, the launch pad(s), the kerbinauts. I also think time should be a factor here. The VAB should only be able to stack, say one rocket per week. A launch pad should only be able to lanch x amount of ships per week etc. So there would be financial incentives to build more of your infrastructure. Also like commercial and prestige contracts could be seeking the same launch day, forcing the player to choose one over the other.

Prestige

This would influence the type of commercial contracts you receive and the size of your annual budget. The more success, the better. Failures, such as losing a Kerbal could eventually having you fired as head of the KSP.

Anyway, hope you guys like these ideas. Love this game.

PS, if resources were ever added, it would fit with this really well.

Just adding on my thoughts from yesterday:

Science

Gaining Science would unlock technologies (not parts) that would then unlock contracts (see below) for new parts. In this new system, Science would not be instant and would take time to unlock. Certain technologies would require lab work done in orbit or on alien planet over time. This would encourage the player to build space stations and permanent bases on other planets.

Science would also be tiered, with certain technologies only unlocking by visiting certain planetary bodies. This would encourage this use of probes, especially earlier in the game.

Contracts

Contracts would be broken into three parts:

R&D: These contracts would appear when certain technologies are unlocked on the tech tree by gaining Science (see above.) These contracts would have little or zero financial payback, but the reward would be unlocking new parts. These new parts would in fact be very expensive to field for the first time, with their cost going down if the player puts them into production.

Prestige: These contracts would be offered by the government or planet wide organizations looking to push the bounds of spaceflight. These too would have very little, if any, financial reward, but would build the players Prestige over time (see below.)

Commercial: These contracts are the money makers. Private companies would ask to have communication, GPS, and weather satellites be put into orbit. These missions would have very exact positioning in orbit. As the players Prestige grows, more complex commercial missions would be offered, like putting an orbiting hotel into orbit or on the Mun.

Funds

Funds would be gained in two ways:

Commercial Contracts: (see above.)

Annual Budget: This would be directly tied to the players Prestige (see below.) The government would expect a certain amount of successful launches per year, this would prevent the player from just fast forwarding time.

Also, everything should cost Funds, the VAB, the launch pads, training, etc. Facilities like the VAB and launch pad should only be able to be used x number of times per month, encouraging the player to build out more infrastructure. Time and timing should be a major factor. As an example, rescue mission shouldn't be just thrown together. Rockets would take time to stack, roll out and fuel. Also contracts should ask for the same launch day, forcing the player to choose.

Prestige

Prestige would influence the player's annual budget and type of contract. Success would lead to higher budgets and better contacts, and failures would lead to lower budgets and no contracts. If the player continued to fail or lose many kerbals, the player could be fired as head of KSP.

Edited July 21, 2014 by vexx32
Merged double post.

[Thrombo]

I'm a bit surprised nobody has replied to your thread. Just wanted to say I think by and large these are really awesome suggestions and would add a lot of depth to career mode.

A lot of the contracts I take are ones that are convenient (SRB when landed, derp), are super easy with high payout (test pb-ion splashed down for like 145 science), or end up being their own mission to do a bunch (liquid rocket with high max thrust and every part mounted to it for atmos testing. I think having to make some real choices in this area would really flesh out this component.

[MKI]

I feel the reason why no one is replying is because they just added contracts, funds and reputation. There is no logical reason to redo it so soon without good reason. Hell i see no reason to re-do it at all. There defiantly can be improvements, but the suggested changes are just to radical to even be considered, this is especially true when you consider they JUST RELEASED IT.

[Kegereneku]

Although that's a new variation of the "periodic budget" I usually support, yes that's just too soon.

It's up to SQUAD to decide what should be their next priority. Even if we all have our own suggestion (aerodynamic, redo-tech-tree, periodic budget...etc)

[Steampunked]

Good points all around, however I think part of the reason that the Contracts system is set up like it is, is that the devs intend for the player to treat the space program as if it were a private company.

My only real suggestions are these: (1) Remove the science rewards from ALL contracts... this will give more consequence to the money we make from missions as we now have to pay for our own science missions to progress down the tech tree. and (2) get rid of the part testing missions once we've moved on to tier 3 parts (some early part testing is fine for quick and easy cash). We need most of the missions to let us interact with in game assets... either putting up a supplied satellite (spawned in to the sub-assemblies) or adding specific parts to a game-spawned space station. To limit the number of stations- the game could be limited to how many stations it can spawn around a given planet... and each one will be in a very different orbit (orbits and declinations that make sense and that are rounded to nice friendly numbers with lots of 0's like 120,000m @ 35 degrees instead of 134,577m @29 degrees). We could also be asked to land and repair or check up on or collect data from probes landed on other bodies or in orbit around other bodies.

~ash

[regex]

Nice ideas overall but I have a few criticisms.

I'm slowly getting behind the idea of commercial contracts as written, but the caveat must be that you can optionally terminate/hand off the craft once the mission has been completed so that it no longer appears in the tracking station, ever. I don't want game-generated craft cluttering up space but I'm not necessarily opposed to putting them into orbit as a routine "challenge" to gain cash.

I am very much against budgets per timeframe because you would eventually end up having to timewarp until you get some money in order to play the game. This, to me, is horrible game design. At least with how it is now you have the option of doing something else while your Duna craft travels, for instance, but if you blew all your funding on that Duna craft you can do nothing else new until the next year rolls around. While you can shellac over this as "planning", I play games to actually play, not wait.

I do, however, like the idea of multiple launch sites at different latitudes that serve different purposes. For instance, an off-equator launch site would be better for commercial launches/rescues to inclined orbits. Having a turn-over time for these launch sites introduces an element of planning into the game that is lacking. There should be enough launch sites/runways that you are never prevented from launching (again, the "waiting game" with timewarp), but you would then have the option of launching at a sub-optimal site or planning your launches in a manner that allows optimal usage. Following the infrastructure building idea, you could place say, three launch sites at the start of that game and work from there, adding or improving them as time goes by. Maybe you could even have a maximum launch mass per site that could be upgraded. I also think launch sites and stack building times should be determined by the mass of the craft in question rather than by a blanket time because that adds yet another element of planning to the mix.

I am also very much against stack building time before a mission, mainly because, in the real world, craft and payloads are built far in advance and take much longer than a week. There are also instances of very quick turn-around at a site, like with at least one Gemini mission. A better system, IMO, is time debt for building a stack, where the facilities are unavailable after the stack is built. That lets you launch when you want but also retains the planning element that comes with the site.

Hrm... I suppose off-loading the time until after the launch may still result in some sort of "waiting game", but to me it just seems ... friendlier to the player, resulting in less interruption overall.

[Nemoricus]

Regex: Yearly budgets are far too long, I'll agree with that. But I think that a time-based budget has merits if they're run on a shorter time frame, like weeks or months. Specifically, I'm interested in the tradeoffs they could present for launch windows. "Do I launch a mission to satisfy a potentially important contract? Or do I pass it up so that I can afford my Duna mission?"

It can also add time pressures. "I want to do a Duna mission, but I'll need a budget of 500k to do so. Can I bring mine up high enough in time for the launch window?"

These examples are somewhat arbitrary, but they give an idea of what I'd like to see from them. At the moment, time is essentially meaningless, since you can accumulate funds as quickly as you can launch missions. I'd like to have to take into account how long a mission will take, how long the span between transfer windows is, and so on, rather than simply time warping whenever it's convenient.

[regex]

Regex: Yearly budgets are far too long, I'll agree with that. But I think that a time-based budget has merits if they're run on a shorter time frame, like weeks or months. Specifically, I'm interested in the tradeoffs they could present for launch windows. "Do I launch a mission to satisfy a potentially important contract? Or do I pass it up so that I can afford my Duna mission?"

It can also add time pressures. "I want to do a Duna mission, but I'll need a budget of 500k to do so. Can I bring mine up high enough in time for the launch window?"

These examples are somewhat arbitrary, but they give an idea of what I'd like to see from them. At the moment, time is essentially meaningless, since you can accumulate funds as quickly as you can launch missions. I'd like to have to take into account how long a mission will take, how long the span between transfer windows is, and so on, rather than simply time warping whenever it's convenient.

I'd rather just launch rockets when I want to launch rockets because, IMO, that's what the game is about. Also, time isn't meaningless because you will still have contract deadlines (they really need to be shortened) and you will still have to timewarp to the launch window (which is a dreadfully boring but necessary evil). I think it would be better to put time restraints in that don't ever prevent the player from launching a craft, but instead constrain from where and into what optimal orbit they can launch. That, IMO, is much more interesting planning than "Do I blow it all and then fast forward or do I do a bunch of little launches?" but it does unfortunately run into the anti-realism crowd and their objections against axial tilt (axial tilt can be an interesting planning mechanic as well!). Anyway, never stop launching!

[darpavader]

Hey everyone, thanks for the replies. I would like to start by saying, I love this game. Any suggestion I have, is just that, a suggestion and not a criticism. Squad has made a great game which gets better and better with every release. Having said that, there are things I woould love to see like the ones in my original post.

I understand, with time warp, any annual budget system could be spammed. But I think with the Prestige system, zero launches would equal zero budget.

The other idea I had would be Production Rate. Once a part was fully researched and tested it could enter production. If the player bought one, it would cost x. If the player bought two at a time, it would cost x-100 (as an example.) In other words the more you buy the cheaper the part would become.

Also going back to commercial contracts. I think it would be great idea if there was monthly community contracts ( i have no idea if this is possible.) But what if Squad put out a small patch monthly that contained a community contract?

regex, I like your idea that facilities would become unavailable for a certain period after use.

[darpavader]

one more thing. after watching scott's vid where he unlocked the entire tech tree in two missions I'm convinced that Science shold be changed. Three things I would change:

1. Science should be tiered. Certain techs would only unlock by going to certain plantary bodies.

2. Science should be timed. No instant research. Research should take time.

3. Science should be conducted in certain areas. Certain techs would only unlock if the research was done in certain areas (ie, done in a lab in kerbin, done in an orbiting space station, etc.) Maybe really complex research would have to be conducted at several labs?

Anyway just thinking as I type....

[Nemoricus]

IAlso, time isn't meaningless because you will still have contract deadlines (they really need to be shortened)

At the present, there is no cost whatsoever to the player for waiting, provided they have no outstanding contracts. They can take new contracts now or twenty years in the future. The only thing that changes is the alignment of the planets.

Given this, it seems that the question about deadlines becomes: If I launch right now, can I complete this contract? If the deadlines err on the side of generous, then its precise length doesn't matter much, since the player will be able to complete them in time. This effectively removes time as a pressure for the player.

The converse, making the time limits so stringent that it's a real challenge to finish the mission in time, seems like undesirable gameplay to me. Good for a hard mode, perhaps, but a little too much for the game in general, I feel.

Since I'd like time to be a gameplay factor, I think that other alternatives are needed. Here's a few I think might work.

1. Encourage players to queue contracts that they can't complete in one mission. This gets the clock ticking, since they'll have to launch a second mission within some time after the first. One way to do this would be to restrict the payout of contracts, so that players have to use the advances of several to pay for one mission. But since they shouldn't be able to complete all of those contracts in one mission, they need to complete those contracts quickly enough so that they have both the funds and times to complete their other outstanding contracts.

2. Include time-based costs. Like, say, for paying for mission control, Kerbal astronaut salaries, radar tracking facilities, so and so forth.

3. Time-based budgets, as I mentioned above.

4. Some combination of the above.

but instead constrain from where and into what optimal orbit they can launch.

What do you propose for this?

That, IMO, is much more interesting planning than "Do I blow it all and then fast forward or do I do a bunch of little launches?"

That depends entirely on what you're doing with those launches. Can you do some very high prestige contracts with that one big launch? Or would it be better to spread out the launches, potentially covering a larger range of mission profiles? Big launches are also more complex and inherently riskier. There's more room for things to go wrong and the consequences more severe if they do.

[klgraham1013]

I'd rather just launch rockets when I want to launch rockets because, IMO, that's what the game is about. Also, time isn't meaningless because you will still have contract deadlines (they really need to be shortened) and you will still have to timewarp to the launch window (which is a dreadfully boring but necessary evil).

Doesn't time warping to a launch window take under a minute? Maybe I just have a bit more patience, or a different definition of dreadful.

I think the original post has some good ideas. I don't need much more time with .24 to know I don't like the contracts as they are. Any discussion for improvement is welcome in my eyes.

[rkman]

My pet peeve about "science points" is that it is not clear what the points represent - if it is supposed to represent scientific knowledge, then it makes no sense to "spend" it as though it is a currency. Knowledge is something that you get to keep when it is used.

If at all feasible i think that it would be better if science points would work more like "experience points" as used in RPG games, which only unlocks access to increasingly advanced stuff, but is not spend to buy those things. Instead some currency (funds) are spend to buy parts or pay for research.

[regex]

At the present, there is no cost whatsoever to the player for waiting, provided they have no outstanding contracts. They can take new contracts now or twenty years in the future. The only thing that changes is the alignment of the planets.

I'm actually perfectly fine with this. It lets players play the game at their own pace.

The converse, making the time limits so stringent that it's a real challenge to finish the mission in time, seems like undesirable gameplay to me. Good for a hard mode, perhaps, but a little too much for the game in general, I feel.

My only stipulation was that they be shortened. Contrary to the above, I believe you should be under (at least mild!) time pressure when you accept a contract. It doesn't need to be to the point of being challenging for an old-hand at the game, but a year to rescue a Kerbal from orbit is just ... ridiculous.

What do you propose for this?

I've mused elsewhere on this and it's a pet idea I might try modding. Basically giving the player multiple launch sites to choose from at different latitudes with turn-over times after launches that would require you to plan your site usage. The general idea being that the player almost always has the option to launch (because that's what the game is about) but the choice of launch site would be a limiting factor in contract selection. I also believe that contract stacking is kind of silly right now and that, if possible, each launch should represent one contract which, along with shortened deadlines, would encourage planning when selecting contracts. You would need to adjust contracts to require inclined orbits, including planetary axial tilt (a big planning factor here on Earth), and also incline the planets a bit more to get some benefit out of this, which will probably turn at least a few people off of the idea, but it's a more realistic approach to launch planning.

You can also pretty easily abuse the timewarp with that system if you want but, to me anyway, that should be the player's choice regarding what pace they want to play at. I also think accepting a contract should be a real decision, not just a "how many can I do at once" sort of affair.

E:

Doesn't time warping to a launch window take under a minute? Maybe I just have a bit more patience, or a different definition of dreadful.

About 50 seconds from game start to the first Duna transfer at max warp. Then you have travel time, which is ~55 seconds. With KAC and a better timewarp gradient you could get the entire process down down around twenty seconds (sans burn), which is much better, IMO.

Edited July 23, 2014 by regex

[Kegereneku]

Wanting to let player launch their rockets at their own pace is fine, but if we intend to add a "planning aspect" to the game I'm afraid you can't actually let the player entirely free.

Myself I do not see how we could create a "planning aspect" with meaningful choices without using "time" as a game mechanics. Especially with the current economic that make it impossible to fails.

You could play with the cost and reward as parameters so you have to fulfill some contract first but that isn't as much a choice than a forced order.

Also, I don't see how launching from different latitudes will make much difference unless the costs are so tight it require an autopilot to succeed. Players are likely to just orbit more fuel to do the necessary plane change. (remember than parts are balanced to make interplanetary travel relatively easy)

Playing with times and contracts' deadlines however seem much easier to me since the players are for now used to "throw time away" using timewarp (time not being a resources).

The dilemma would then be whether or not the available launchpad let the player launch a rocket in time to accomplish his contracts.

But on the matter Regex's suggestion of always having one launch-site ready at any time would actually short-circuit most needs for planning as you could always just add fuels to do the plane change necessary.

So Regex isn't so much adding "planning" than difficulty to predict (mostly by chance) which launch-pad will be best for which contract.

To be required to care about planning, the player need to come across situation where wrong prioritization would keep him from progressing.

That's were the "fixed budget / periodic budget" idea come.

If you would not get the budget to (say) launch more than one/two rocket per <time period>, planning which contract you accomplish first would become a necessity.

You could accept a contract to launch 2 satellites, then be tempted to save a Kerbun, only to realize that its reward doesn't allow you to fulfill the first contract... forcing you to accept (if available) a contract you would be required to fulfill during the next <time period> to use the funds advance to finish your original contract.

All this would become dramatically more important as you plan to launch a mission to Duna during the best launch windows while having the most funds at your disposal.

Lastly, I also think that making "budget" the main source of income to launch rocket from could solve the current overabundance of funds.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Kegereneku
minor correction

[darpavader]

Kegereneku used the right word, prioritization. Right now the game doesn't have it. Adding the time aspect to the game would add this.

I was just reading about STS-125/STS-400. It reminded me about something that we've all done in KSP, the rescue mission. During STS-125, NASA had STS-400 stacked and on a pad in case 125 was in trouble. In KSP, rescue missions are stacked and launched in zero game time. I would like to see a system where chioces were forced on the player.