0.24 Some feedback about contracts and funds

[KerbMav]

• As Kerb Johnson said, the loophole of leaving a satellite and a probe around each body to instantly complete an infinite number of "transmit science" contracts needs to be fixed.
  
• Proposed solution: As Kerb Johnson proposed, we should have single-use, contract-specific science parts for recovery/transmit/leave-in-space-for-x-years.

Easiest to be implemented, I think, as long as the science experiment transmitted can be identified and the contract system is not just checking for any science coming in from X.

The system to make unavailable parts available in the VAB at a limited quantity is even already in place.

Now create an experiment cfg for every agency and copy the PART for each into the new parts cfg to get multiple parts in one go. (Will require taking care and reading the text in VAB to take the correct part on the mission, but we do not want this to be to easy, right? )

• Satellite repair missions. Spawn a game-generated satellite that forgot to open its solar panels, or needs a monopropellant refuel, or needs its reaction wheel repaired, or needs its goo or science jr. to be reset with a mobile science lab, or needs to be boosted to a higher orbit because of orbital decay. Despawn the satellite when the player timewarps after mission success.
  
• Contacts to launch something into the Sun or Jool (unmanned, of course.)
  
• As others have suggested, capture an asteroid into LKO. Seriously, this one should have been obvious.
  
• While we're on the subject, how about diverting a doomsday Class E asteroid on a collision course?
  

Still not sure if automatically spawned satellites will be welcomed by the player base, but if they really despawn afterwards - has a better taste to it, yes.

Jool needs a lower atmosphere (if it doesnt have one already), than contracts for experiments can be generated as usual. Just that there has to be a logic in place to only allow experiments that can be done in this situation.

Will most likely have to be a specific asteroid generated for the contract alone. Doable, as we have contracts spawning Kerbals that are basically asteroids for the game.

Armakeddon (sorry) re-enactment might be fail due to the collision course degrading to a flyby over time(warp).

Well, awaiting .24.2 ...

[matts73]

I know that's a rather negative title and I think Kerbal is really good and I'm really enjoying it.

However I think the new contracts system follows the wrong paradigm, for example.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

That's rather my complaint about a lot of the "gamey" aspects, there's too many jokes and not enough of an attempt to make a challenging and engaging experience.

I'd be very interested to know what others think, thank you.

Absolutely right...

[Bloodlance]

i feel that the higher tier big missions should reward only funds. and the negative effect of the missions should be -120% funds if failed.

also the science side of the missions, if a mission has science it should reduce the funds amounts the more science is given, so you loose a lot of funds getting those science points. So it might even be a viable thing to have missions with 0 funds rewarded with ie. 50 science reward with -50 000 funds if failed.

[Bloodlance]

ALSO , to note , fix the mission where sending 0 science reports from orbit gives a mission completion ( needs to have +0.1 or more science in the report to get mission completion ).

ALSO , to nore , fix the mission where you plant a flag, so you do not get a reward everytime you plant a flag with the same kerbal who is jammed in Mun surface for life. ( 1 flag planting ability for 1 kerbal = so basicly one dude has 1 flag with him. )

Edited July 22, 2014 by Bloodlance

[matts73]

The test while landed at Kerbin missions are realistic, It's the fire a rocket motor at the space center to test it's ISP and thrust numbers(and what have you).

Does it make much sense to send a completely untested part to a far off world? No, Not at all. So test fire it at home and make sure it'll work.

May be it would be more realistic if the parts must be testet in various situations to get unlocked (or you can buy the tests for a lot of money ...) even a component failure by the factor of how untestet thew part is would be "realistic" completely untestet >= 75 % failure possiblity , run 2 or more tests <= 10 % failure possibility. But I think this will never be implementet as it would make the game to hard for a lot of people.

[KSK]

I know that's a rather negative title and I think Kerbal is really good and I'm really enjoying it.

However I think the new contracts system follows the wrong paradigm, for example.

"Test Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster on a sub-orbital trajectory over kerbin"

Altitude 78k to 83k.

This is exactly what I don't want to be doing when playing the game, this is classic hoop-jumping assessment philosophy, you end up designing all of your missions just to do these silly contracts losing sight of any bigger picture.

Completely respect your opinion but (so far), I think the contracts system is about right. It includes a mix of 'big picture' missions (go to Mun, get science, we don't care how) as well as the hoop-jumping ones that you don't like. I'm fine with that - there's no harm in taking the mundane jobs to pay the bills for aspirational explore and discover missions.

The equipment test missions also make sense to me. When testing a new aircraft, the first job is to make sure it gets off the runway at all! Then test to make sure it flies 'in the middle of the envelope'. Then start pushing the envelope - will it fly at this angle of attack, at this speed? Can it take such and such a maneuver? I picture the equipment test contracts coming at the end of that process - the company hiring you already knows that their gear works in the lab or under normal conditions. Now they want you to push the envelope for them.

In terms of gameplay, personally I'm enjoying having to design new rockets or figure out a particular ascent profile, in order to meet the contract. It's really nice to have a reason to putter around with sub-orbital flights a bit longer, and do more early game Kerbin orbital flights than the obligatory one or two 'grab all the science' missions.

Just my opinion of course. One person's hoop jumping tedium is another person's fun.

Edited July 22, 2014 by KSK

[JimmyAgent007]

I think part testing should leave you with the part afterwards but for a single use. So if you dont recover it you dont get it back. Also the "return science" missions work even if you report science from where its already empty. Doesnt seem right to me, a little too easy. I think individual kerbals should get rep for the missions they complete just so we can see who your rockstars are. Havent seen any "return samples" just return or transmit science. Id suggest returning grants a better reward than transmission.

[Red Iron Crown]

I know that's a rather negative title and I think Kerbal is really good and I'm really enjoying it.

However I think the new contracts system follows the wrong paradigm, for example.

"Test Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster on a sub-orbital trajectory over kerbin"

Altitude 78k to 83k.

This is exactly what I don't want to be doing when playing the game, this is classic hoop-jumping assessment philosophy, you end up designing all of your missions just to do these silly contracts losing sight of any bigger picture.

When Kennedy said "We choose to go to the moon" in 1962 he didn't say "but only if you use a stack decoupler between an altitude of 10 and 30km". Why?

Because he trusted his engineers to figure out all the details and do the mission themselves.

This is what IMO contracts should be all about, they should be about being given an abstract and high level task to do however you want. Want to use 10 or no decouplers? Fine. Solid or liquid boosters? No one cares. Just get it done, on budget, on time.

Moreover if there were a hard mode where money was tight then you would have to be very careful, and maybe turn down contracts because you calculate they can't be done for a profit.

Right now it feels like WOW, just grind for coins.

Here are some examples of the type of mission I am talking about.

1) Get above x altitude (which is already in the game which is cool)

2) Orbit Kerbin

3) Place this object in a specific orbit, say circular, 100km, 23 degrees inclination (there should be loads of these which you would want to build a standard platform to do)

[also on that note how about a design fee? Every time you design a new ship you pay a fee proportional to the number of components used so you want to do some calculations and then build a standard platform and use it for a long time and then, if it proves not powerful enough or you think you have a good cheaper alternative, then you redesign a new ship]

4) land a kerbal on (wherever) and return them safely

5) send a probe to (wherever)

6) Capture an asteroid.

Also the amount of money you are paid for a particular mission could go down over time, so at the beginning you can make a monster to lift a few kilos but in the end you have to calculate very carefully exactly how much dv you will need.

It would be great to use a couple of lifts from a cheap, standard platform and assemble in orbit and find that was cheaper than designing a monster from scratch.

I want to feel like a senior engineer planning a mission when I play this game, not like a junior engineer who does legwork all day, if I want to do that I'll just get a job.

I feel a worrying amount of time has gone into this system and it's not very good game design. In fact (and this is a larger issue) I think Kerbal is an amazing simulator and not a great game. Why are the astronauts measured in stupidity? What does that mean? That's a joke in the place of a meaningful gameplay mechanic.

That's rather my complaint about a lot of the "gamey" aspects, there's too many jokes and not enough of an attempt to make a challenging and engaging experience.

I'd be very interested to know what others think, thank you.

This is a great first post. Good points and they are expressed well.

I agree with most of it. I haven't completed a contracts career yet, but the contracts I have done feel arbitrary and meaningless. Contracts should be about setting real, new, meaningful goals that expand the space program instead of achieving arbitrary test conditions for part x. The rescue missions feel like I'm cleaning up the messes made by another space program (I make enough of my own messes to clean up, thanks). It all feels kind of hollow to me.

[Stephanie the Viking]

A few people have mentioned the mission to rescue Kerbals... can somebody tell me how to coax the ignorant little guy to get into the empty pod on my (very early [no RCS, only LV45 engine so no room for error]) craft which is less than 80 metres away so I can go home?

[Ferigad]

@Stephanie the Viking:

When you are close enough, i think even 500 meters are enough, you can switch to the Kerbal and take Control of him. Then you simply use his Jetpack to fly him to your rocket, put him in, and thats technicly it.

For the rest...

I think the most importent points has been mentioned here allready. To be honest, i enjoy the Testing of new Parts on the ground, it feels like a real "prototype" test before you fit it to a rocket. But thats only a personal view. I agree, you get at some of the contracts way to mutch science points. But i had allready 25 contracts done, 3 mun missions, 2 minmus mission and even a duna mission and the techtree isn´t still finished. For an alphastatus the balance is okay at the moment, but for a later version it will need balancing.

Space Station contracts would be cool, too. Even mutch cooler if you could use your science module, where you have to make experiments, depending on your contract. The button could show up to do the experiment like the "run test" button from parts, but i would cleary attach some kind of timer to the tests. And even maybe some extra items you have to get up there, before you can run the experiment.

Some of the contracts are alot overpowered. Here i a simple example what happend to me:

I was contracted to test that giant 4 nozzle size 3 rocketthrusters with 10 tons or so, around the moon. For 1,4 million kerbal dollars. So i just striped a unmaned rocket together for around 100K and fired it up, flyed it to the moon and with the last 0.01% fuel i made the TestRun around the moon and bingo, got the money. After that, selfdestruct. Clearly, the contract system can be easly exploited to get quick money until your account gets 8 digits. But i am confident that this dedicated devolopment team of KSP will find some solutions, and a good balancing, for that issue.

And without a doubt, great patch! *thumps up*

[m00nchile]

To be honest, I also expected more varied missions, like:

-Launch a probe into orbit with X AP/PE and Y inclination, possibly with the addition of required parts (science, comm...)

-Unmanned missions preceding manned missions (would require slight rearranging of the science tree)

-Impactor and soft landing probes

-Rover missions

-Biome specific science missions

From a design perspective, I absolutely understand and agree with Squads decisions though, they made the system and released it for testing, fine tuning comes later.

A few other ideas, the Explore Eve mission should have a warning attached to it, a newer Kerbalnaut who just experienced the high of a Mun landing could tackle the Eve mission

and get a swift kick in the rear when he tries to bring his Kerbals home from the surface of that monster.

Test missions of the "in flight over Kerbin" could be slightly more lax and not attached to the staging controls, for instance "Use a Turbojet engine to achieve a speed over 700m/s and altitude over 20km and

recover the craft from the Runway"

Also, something not attached to the contract system, delta v stats and phase angles should be visible without mods.

[Aragosnat]

A few people have mentioned the mission to rescue Kerbals... can somebody tell me how to coax the ignorant little guy to get into the empty pod on my (very early [no RCS, only LV45 engine so no room for error]) craft which is less than 80 metres away so I can go home?

use the braket keys "[ ]" to select the Kerbal when under 2 km then hit "r" to get him to use his jet pack.

For the rescueing of the Kerbals. It is mentioned we are not the only space agency around. So that would explain why they are up there. Also look at the new vid they did for 0.24 update showing a Kerbal being dragged up into space.

Do agree with some points that the contracts that give science points should not give much funds or a lot less science points. As I had fun going to the other biomes to aquire the science. One thing Squad could do is. Instead of new tech costing science points. It could also require Funds to unlock too.

But, on the whole. I feel the contracts are very Kerbal.

[Stephanie the Viking]

Yeah I forgot about the square brackets... been a while since I played. That was getting frustrating; I did wonder why the guy was oblivious to the command pod that was literally hitting into him! Thanks Ferigad and Aragosnat ;-)

My tupenth worth: I also believe that science is way too easy to get in contact mode. I also believe that the science tree is too easy to stroll through. Each node should give only one or two items maximum, that way the tree can be much more spread out and take longer to complete. 50 science points for some silly test in orbit seems excessive to say the least; at this rate I'll never have to go further than Mun before I've unlocked everything!

This image has nothing to do with anything, I'm just retrograde burning to land on Mun and thought the shot was nice.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Stephanie the Viking

[KerikBalm]

My thoughts:

*Regarding the science for contracts, it makes more sense to me. I don't see how taking a soil sample of Duna is supposed to help you design a nuclear thermal rocket, or advance R&D in any meaningful way. R&D consists of testing various experimental prototypes and such - thus I see no problem with getting science after testing parts.

More on this later

*Some of the contracts are too trival though, and thus are pretty stupid;

- Some weird combinations of speed and altitude - though some combinations make sense, so that you actually test the part in a way similar to the way you "should" use the part - like perhaps a Lv909 at high speed and altitude as a circularization engine, or drogues when you are coming in "hot". SRBs on the Mun? not so much

-lets say all the landed on Kerbin ones

-Testing jet engines on airless bodies, or on other bodies in general - however, I recently got a contract to test a rapier while landed on the mun, and I must admit, that was fun. I've never made a rapier design for use beyond getting to low Kerbin/Laythe orbit. Using it in its pure rocket regime was somewhat new to me. Of course, I still made use of its turbojet function during the launch too. Generally, my SSTOs I design are never meant to do more than lift a payload to low orbit, and maybe hitch a ride to laythe as a reusable lander. This contract inspired me to make my first SSTO spaceplane that can launch and land vertically on airless world.

The procedural "random" nature of the contracts makes for a variety of stupid contracts, but occassioanly, it produces an interesting contract.

Note it does have some contracts that are straightforward and make sense, like "explore *insert name of celestial body here* "

* Back to science, as I was saying - why should doing a seismic scan of tylo, or a surface sample of minmus, be what finally allows you to use ion engines, or docking ports, or nuclear engines, or structural girders? What it does do, it make the space program look better, and probably help attract funding. What if contracts give you science, and science experiments give you rep and funding?

* I like the experimental contracts, giving me early access to aerospikes, rapiers, LV-Ns and ions.... but this needs refining. The contract gives you access to the ion engine, but not xenon tanks, so you can't do anything with it, it doesn't help you test it to decide if it is an unlock priority. I've heard similar issues for the jets - they aren't giving intakes, although I didn't get these contracts before unlocking the parts.

Overall... its okay, but can use refinement to weed out the obviously non sensical ones + some check to make sure it gives you all you need to use a part (ie, xenon tanks and ions, intakes and jets

I would like some sort of Repuptation based basic funding, so that you could ignore contracts if you want, and just do your own missions that build your rep (though, they do have those exploration contracts, for 1 time pay).

Adding contracts for you to establish "bases" (much like launching a sat into orbit X that must contains parts A& would also be fun - although the "plant flag" contracts do sort of encourage that. I always make my plaques for those flags something like "your advert here" or "advertizing space for rent"

[KSK]

*snipped lots of good stuff*

* Back to science, as I was saying - why should doing a seismic scan of tylo, or a surface sample of minmus, be what finally allows you to use ion engines, or docking ports, or nuclear engines, or structural girders? What it does do, it make the space program look better, and probably help attract funding. What if contracts give you science, and science experiments give you rep and funding?

I like that idea - I like it a lot! To be fair, I can see how some of the science experiments would help with mission planning (gravimetric scans around planets to check for mascons for example) but that's kind of a roleplaying concern only at the moment. Probably going to stay that way too which makes sense - too much micromanaging otherwise.

[Apollo91]

I agree with everyone on the lack of a "satellite" mission type. That was what I thought the bread-and-butter of the contract system would be, and the lack of it just makes the whole seem thing off.

I would very much like to see a mission that says "build a satellite with XY components and put it in orbit AxY inclination Z around planet P for T length of time." But what would be really awesome is if the contracts were smart enough to build on themselves - say, after you put the satellite on its orbit, if it had science equipment the contract engine would automatically use the science equipment at regular intervals, and automatically generate a mission to the satellite to rearm them. This would be easy to do, though it would require a flag on the ship in the code as "that missions ship" or some way to "forfeit" a ship to a contract. This would be cool because it would be that "service the satellite" mission type many in this thread are asking for, without the break in immersion that spawning random satellites\stations would create. A similar thing would be to have the satellite require X amount of communication bandwidth, and have the satellite be visited periodically to refill it's procedurally-emptied fuel tanks (which were a requirement of the original place-the-communications-satellite contract.) Lots of possibilities here - with no random spawning. I hate that about the rescue kerbal contracts...

I would also like better exploration contracts. Namely, not having flag placement be the contract trigger. That's great for a first-steps situation but afterwards doesn't work. What would be better was if you could spawn a mission Kerbal that the contract tracks, and say "bring tourist X to planet Y and have him take steps on the surface." This would not only emulate the space tourism industry, but would be a convenient way to make sure that a transportation system was used to travel to that planet again - and what a win for those reusable guys, eh?

And lastly, atm it seems that when you unlock a science tier, you get to unlock all the parts for free, without paying any funds. Maybe I'm not noticing the funds get subtracted and it's doing it automatically but that is very disappointing. I would definitely like those unlocks to cost funds, that way you need science and funds to unlock parts. Also, their listed unlock prices should be raised.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Apollo91

[Stephanie the Viking]

Also, I'd like to point out that the grammar in the contract information text is horrifically bad. It makes no difference to gameplay, but as a university student it is PAINFUL to read.

[Franklin]

Yeah the flavor text isn't passing a Turing test, but let's make the contracts fun before we make them sensical.

[Melcom]

i have a question. My Techtree is full now, and i was on Mun, Minmus, Duna and Ike. Now i have 3 to 4 contracts to choose from, nothing more. Rescue, Flags, and so on. Is there a problem with the endgame?

While i was filling the techtree, there were many, many test-contracts for parts. I was really anoyed of it, but in the endgame, there is nearly nothing of this. Sure, i have to explore Eve, Jool and so on, but until i get there, where is the challenge, and the funds...?

[RocketPilot573]

The main thing I want changed is the contract deadline... While over 100 days to reach orbit may seem kind of ok for real life, Kerbals can literally build their rockets instantaneously (time stops while in the editor). So the entire progress of research and development and even building the rocket and flying it actually takes around 15 minutes if your just going to orbit. And while getting to the Moon took us humans a few years, Kerbals can reach the Mun in about 12 hours.

So basically, deadlines need to be wayyyyyyy shorter to have any kind of effect on gameplay. The only way I'll ever miss one is if I fall asleep on the time warp button. For example, testing a landing gear on the Mun should have a deadline of maybe 5 days, not 5 years. Then there will be an incentive to get it done sooner rather then later, as right now you can just queue up all the contracts in mission control without any worry of not finishing them in time.

Edited July 23, 2014 by RocketPilot573

[Melcom]

I agree with some dealines, like 24y to plant a flag on duna. But you have to so "the big picture". You start the game with no experience and you try to get to Mun. Small timeframes would make the game even harder. And don't underestimate interplanetary traveltimes.

But i still have nearly no Contracts in the late games. This should be tweaked.

[Sky_walker]

Failing contract is not a disaster.

Failing contracts should be a part of learning experience just like failing flight in your rocket is.

Currently it's borderline impossible to fail a contract unless you intentionally do it. That looks very much like a broken game design.

I agree with some dealines, like 24y to plant a flag on duna. And don't underestimate interplanetary traveltimes.

You take 24 years in-game travel to get on a Duna?

o_O You make a trip all the way from Sun low orbit to beyond Eeloo on your way there? lol

But you have to so "the big picture". You start the game with no experience and you try to get to Mun. Small timeframes would make the game even harder.

What do you mean "even harder"?!

The big picture is that contracts made it far easier than it was before (you get flooded with science and money). And the times before navigation nodes and internet tutorial videos are long gone. But even without the tutorials - game is relatively easy - I did my Mun landing just fine in a first day after getting the game with no tutorials or looking up manual/etc.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Melcom]

You do know that not everybody masters this game instantly, like you? If you design games, you have to think about a few more types of players...

This is far from "balanced" right now, we all know that. And thats why we are talking here.

You take 24 years in-game travel to get on a Duna?

o_O You make a trip all the way from Sun low orbit to beyond Eeloo on your way there? lol

Maybe you read the whole thread post to post...

24 years for a flag on Duna is indeed a long time. And this is ingame now. Got it? Or should i paint a picture for you?

[Laie]

I haven't completed a contracts career yet, but the contracts I have done feel arbitrary and meaningless. Contracts should be about setting real, new, meaningful goals that expand the space program instead of achieving arbitrary test conditions for part x. The rescue missions feel like I'm cleaning up the messes made by another space program (I make enough of my own messes to clean up, thanks). It all feels kind of hollow to me.

Part tests and rescue missions can still serve a purpose when you're on a streak of bad luck and need the gold. But I'd wish there was some sort of filter that I don't even see them unless I want to.

That it all rings hollow is somewhat expected. They did their best to order the exploration contracts in a meaningful way (orbit->mun->minmus...), but those are limited to the number of celestial bodies (or, maybe later, number of biomes). Then they thought up a few more generic missions to round it out, and it shows. But frankly, I couldn't think of better missions, nor have I seen any really convincing suggestion so far. Part tests or rescuing Kerbals or putting up satellites, that's all rather unexciting and menial tasks you do for the money.

Even the exploratory contracts ring hollow because of their obvious progression. After Mun and Minmus, Duna is the logical next choice -- yet even the obious progression can't really do it right. In my very first game of KSP, I was quite excited when I finally "mastered" Mun & Minmus and revelled a bit in my achievement, flying a few more missions just because. An EXPLORE DUNA! appering in my inbox the very moment I leave Minmus would have watered down that triumph quite a bit. But that was just me; other players might be more impatient, grudgingly performing the Minmus mission only because they have to "unlock" the Duna contract.

Coming to think of it, the whole funding by contracts approach is a rather brutish way to make the player go through hoops. You don't have to go through all hoops and not necessarily in order, but no amount of sugar coating can hide the blatantly obvious fact that here is a hoop and the game wants you to go through. Will there be cake when I'm done?

[SRV Ron]

While Jeb is on his way to Mun for a orbital mission, he has already fulfilled several requests for data transmitted while over Kerbal. In addition, several other contract missions were completed that has resulted in the unlocking of better tech to allow for building an efficient lander in order to complete the Mun contract. One can get a lot accomplished if you can work on several projects at once.

If, of course, you don't like the contract approach, you can always go back to the Science mode or just play Sandbox.