Remove part testing contracts?

[Solusphere]

So, i've finally had the opportunity to play 0.24, and while my experience with the new additions has mostly been very positive, i'm really, really not a fan of the part testing contracts. I feel like they've really been detracting from my game, because I spend far more time building random, awkwardly staged and impractical vessels to jump through as many arbitrary hoops as possible than doing the kind of thing I enjoy doing ingame. I *could* just not take them, but they represent a substantial portion of your available resources, so it feels like i'm hobbling myself by doing that. I'm the kind of player who obsessively strives towards maximum efficiency, and not doing so is difficult. Which means, oh, you had these two near-identical probe engines you were supposed to test, but one had to be done with the run test command while the other had to be staged just so at just this point in time, and you got them mixed up? Better restart this half-hour long mission that was otherwise going really well!

I know it's largely my own personality at fault here, but I know there are a ton of gamers like me, and I really don't see what they add to the game. It's something you have to grind through to get to the parts of the game that actually feel fulfilling and enjoyable. I personally would be very happy if the part test contracts were removed entirely.

And yes, I know the system is very early and far from complete, i'm just giving my impression of the system as it currently stands.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Solusphere

[Kasuha]

As you say, these testing contracts are substantial part of the income so I don't think things would improve by removing them. Maybe just some other contracts could be added so you don't feel pressed to take contracts you don't like. And I'm pretty sure that's intended by developers and we may see more contract variety even in the next release.

but I agree that this 'run test' vs stage thing is confusing.

It would be also nice if it was possible to re-read the whole test description in flight without returning to space center.

[M3tal_Warrior]

I for myself do them if they sound funny or easy, otherwise I get my funds a little different: Research satellites around every body. This way you just accept those 'get science from blah' missions and switch through all your satellites collecting the money. Quite profitable and takes half a minute for each contract to fulfill (with higher margins as the test contracts, speaking efficiency here).

[Wanderfound]

If you dig through the initial response threads from shortly after the release of First Contract, you'll find that many people greatly enjoy the challenge presented by the testing contracts. Figuring out how to economically test a heavy, oversized part at an awkward combination of speeds and altitudes makes for an interesting puzzle. The off-Kerbin testing contracts also provide a reason to return to other planets that was missing in 23.5; once you'd been to Duna once, there was no reason to return apart from sightseeing.

If you don't want to do them, don't accept the contract; it's that simple. They're not compulsory. It's so easy to accumulate massive quantities of √ that there's no need to take every contract on offer.

The key to getting the contract system working properly is going to be expanding the diversity of contract types, not contracting it. Make it so that everyone can ignore the types of contracts that they don't enjoy so much while still having plenty of other options to choose from. Missions to launch or maintain satellites, urgent missions to rescue crippled spacecraft before they burn up in atmosphere, missions to take particular types of science readings from specific locations on planets, etc.

A switchable "hide all contracts of type X" option wouldn't be a bad idea, though.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Seret]

It's something you have to grind through to get to the parts of the game that actually feel fulfilling and enjoyable. I personally would be very happy if the part test contracts were removed entirely.

Sounds like you'd probably be happier playing in sandbox or science mode.

[Solusphere]

Sounds like you'd probably be happier playing in sandbox or science mode.

There's really no need to be patronizing. Just so we're clear, I DO like the contract system overall, and i'm really looking forward to seeing what interesting missions Squad can come up with. I already love the "rescue the kerbal in orbit!" missions, and other similar ones that present a unique challenge. My main gripe with the part testing missions is that I feel that they act more like hoops to jump through than goalposts. With the rescue missions, or when redirecting an asteroid, or travelling to Jool and back, there are a ton of ways for you to achieve that objective, and it's up to you to do it in your own unique style. I feel like that freedom is greatly lessened with the part testing missions, as their criteria are extremely specific to the point where you are forced to conform the mission around them, rather than being able to just test organically through standard use in the field, which I feel would be better.

I may well be in the minority with that view. Everyone else might think they're the best thing ever. That's fine, but not saying anything helps noone.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Solusphere

[Whirligig Girl]

Hey, read this.

KSP and testing, a pilot's perspective.

Alright, so let's talk testing. I've been seeing a ton of gripes on here about the part test profiles, their restrictions, and their very strict requirements. Most of these gripes have been along the lines that they are patently ridiculous, unnecessary and overly difficult to accomplish. I would like to point out that this is ACTUALLY how testing works. Test profiles for unknown parts are extremely stringent and require weeks, sometimes months, of repetitive flights in order to gather the necessary breadth data to analyze part performance. Test pilots spend day after day flying the aircraft within a very tight range of tolerances for the flight test engineers either in the aircraft or on the ground receiving data-linked telemetry and sensor information. If you exceed the tolerances by a little bit, you fly the profile again. You do this until you a) run out of fuel or run out of crew duty day. In either case, you're most likely heading up tomorrow to fly the exact same profile. I had the opportunity to spend a week flying a test run for my company where I had to put the aircraft over a point on the ground +/- 1 minute, +/- 50 ft (altitude), and within 1% of a target aircraft gross weight in order for the test to be valid. If I messed up, it was back to the airfield to refuel and try again. I know that this statement smacks of realism, not game, but how many posts are on here and the boards about things not "being realistic enough?"

"But Kal, I can't engage my LV-XXX where it says, because the stage timing doesn't work right!" Ok, if you're going to take these contracts (which you don't have to do, btw), you gasp might have to put forth some thought, consideration, planning, and, yes, MATH. MOAR STRUTS! MOAR BOOSTERS! Might not work! (Say it isn't so!!!). Consider launching the test vehicle at a 45* angle or less in order to maximize the time you spend within the test window. As you gain aircraft parts, consider creating flying testbeds to test parts: aircraft that you attach something to and then fly it into the test window to engage the test item. 14000m to 20000m at 250m/s to 450m/s is well within the flight envelope of aircraft in KSP, and it's recoverable. Most aviation corporations as well as governmental organizations keep an inventory of testbed aircraft (B-52's, BBJ's, G4's, Lears, SR-71, etc) for the purpose of strapping odd things to them to test performance. While I find the "science mode" versus "career mode" graphics as funny as anyone else, test aircraft really do look very odd. Consider the 747 test of the GE90 engine below:

747 GE90 Test Picture

or the F-35 nose cone aerodynamic test

F-35 Nose Cone Test Picture

Look pretty goofy? Yeah. On an unrelated note, the 747 was able to shut down it's other 3 engines and fly on the GE90 alone. In Thrust We Trust. Anyway, this statement comes with some caveats:

1) I'd like to see some sort of flight data capability (KER, VOID, etc) to be stock. My crafts live and die by KER, but I totally understand the desire to play stock 2) I'd like to see impossible tests be filtered out. The launch clamps on the mun for instance.

Then again, Squad did say that the contract system is NOT a final product. I suspect that, through constructive, polite, concise, and specific tester feedback (yes, we are all test players. This is not a final game product yet) the product will evolve and get better.

[Solusphere]

Seriously, guys. The correct response to negative feedback is not to argue how i'm wrong and actually I *DO* enjoy this element of the game because look how realistic it is, or tell me that if I don't like it I should just not use it. That's unhelpful to all concerned.

The correct response is to take note, move on and hopefully make use of the information in your decision making processes going forward. Negative feedback does not equal a complaint or demand. Please stop treating it like one.

[Padishar]

I don't think anyone is being patronising or attacking you personally. People are just saying that there are various good reasons to keep them, and people that don't like them don't to have to do them so removing them doesn't make a lot of a sense.

[Wanderfound]

I don't think anyone is being patronising or attacking you personally. People are just saying that there are various good reasons to keep them, and people that don't like them don't to have to do them so removing them doesn't make a lot of a sense.

Yup.

There have been plenty of complaint posts about the test contracts (and also plenty of approving posts), and they've tended to fit it into a few categories.

(1) "I think they're boring": not everyone agrees with you, and this is why none of the contracts are compulsory.

(2) "They're unrealistic": no they aren't. See the test pilot post above.

(3) "I can't do them right": it's KSP. Things are supposed to take a bit of thought and planning, and probably fail horribly the first time you try. Also see point 1.

I'm not seeing any good reason to kill the testing contracts.

Personally, I find the "rescue a Kerbal" contracts both unrealistic (where's his spaceship?) and dull (they're all in the same stable, circular, equatorial orbits). Kerbal rescue contracts present zero challenge to anyone who is comfortable with orbital rendezvous.

I've skipped all of the rescue missions after doing the first few; they don't provide any science, I have no need for more √, and there are plenty of Kerbonaut candidates waiting on the ground. For me, they're about as exciting as driving to work. But I don't want them pulled from the game; many people do like them, and they provide a useful easy introduction to orbital rendezvous.

Now if they tweaked them up a bit, then they might get interesting for me. What I'd like to see are "rescue the out-of-fuel spacecraft before it crashes into Kerbin", with the targets coming in from all sorts of directions and speeds. Think about the challenge of snagging an out of control spacecraft coming in at crazy high velocity while returning from Duna or somesuch. Some could be Kerbals on EVA, some could be spacecraft with docking ports, some could be spacecraft without docking ports (extra fun if you don't have the Klaw yet), some could be atmosphere-grazing satellites in decaying orbits, etc.

The contract system will work best if they include the widest possible variety of contracts, with a wide range of difficulty levels. Something for everybody, and everyone gets to focus on whichever bit of gameplay is most fun to them. That's the Kerbal way.

[Seret]

There's really no need to be patronizing.

I was actually trying to be helpful.

[smart013]

I don't think anyone is being patronising or attacking you personally. People are just saying that there are various good reasons to keep them, and people that don't like them don't to have to do them so removing them doesn't make a lot of a sense.

Exactly. Also:

I know it's largely my own personality at fault here, but I know there are a ton of gamers like me [...]

i fail to see this huge (!) amount of gamers like you. Maybe speaking for yourself is a better way in the future.

[Mr Shifty]

I'm working (slowly) on a mod that will let you disable contracts by type; I specifically don't like the Part Test contracts either, and don't like them cluttering up my mission control.

[BlackAdder128]

Exactly. Also:

i fail to see this huge (!) amount of gamers like you. Maybe speaking for yourself is a better way in the future.

In general, this is a good philosophy. On the other hand, my personal preferences tend to align with the original poster. If the part testing contracts were separated into a subcategory that could be permanently hidden (and replaced by "deploy a satellite to X orbit" missions or some such), that would greatly increase my own personal enjoyment of the career part of the game.

[r4pt0r]

Personally, I find the "rescue a Kerbal" contracts both unrealistic (where's his spaceship?) and dull (they're all in the same stable, circular, equatorial orbits). Kerbal rescue contracts present zero challenge to anyone who is comfortable with orbital rendezvous.

I've skipped all of the rescue missions after doing the first few; they don't provide any science, I have no need for more √, and there are plenty of Kerbonaut candidates waiting on the ground. For me, they're about as exciting as driving to work. But I don't want them pulled from the game; many people do like them, and they provide a useful easy introduction to orbital rendezvous.

Read the contract, they were launched into space via late night industrial accidents (EXPLOSION) usually. never a ship.

[Solusphere]

I was actually trying to be helpful.

Fair enough. My mistake.

Exactly. Also:

i fail to see this huge (!) amount of gamers like you. Maybe speaking for yourself is a better way in the future.

I wasn't referring to my stance on the part tests. By gamers like me, I was referring to people who similarly find it difficult to play games in a perceived non-optimal fashion, often known as powergamers, though that has it's own connotations. It's a personality trait, and it's fairly common. I can find plenty of examples if you need them.

[Padishar]

Read the contract, they were launched into space via late night industrial accidents (EXPLOSION) usually. never a ship.

Which makes even less sense than their ship deciding to re-enter by itself and being destroyed while they were on EVA. You can't put something into orbit with an explosion on the surface. There is just no way to get a stable orbit without some sort of circularisation burn (or secondary explosion) once out of the atmosphere. Also, you'd definitely not expect every one to be equatorial unless they were very carefully planned and executed accidents. If the accident cause is kept then the kerbal should be on a more challenging trajectory, either to catch him before he re-enters, or on an escape trajectory from Kerbin and need bringing back...

[MartGonzo]

They're my least favourite part of contracts too, but i'd vote to keep them as they are and just add more variety to the contracts, which I'm sure they will do.

[cpast]

Which makes even less sense than their ship deciding to re-enter by itself and being destroyed while they were on EVA. You can't put something into orbit with an explosion on the surface. There is just no way to get a stable orbit without some sort of circularisation burn (or secondary explosion) once out of the atmosphere. Also, you'd definitely not expect every one to be equatorial unless they were very carefully planned and executed accidents. If the accident cause is kept then the kerbal should be on a more challenging trajectory, either to catch him before he re-enters, or on an escape trajectory from Kerbin and need bringing back...

They're Kerbals, presumably ones who didn't think they could make the cut to become Kerbonauts the normal way. But they're still Kerbals, and want to go to space. They just did so through a rather convenient "accident", one which also saw them in a spacesuit.

[RenevB]

The key to getting the contract system working properly is going to be expanding the diversity of contract types, not contracting it. Make it so that everyone can ignore the types of contracts that they don't enjoy so much while still having plenty of other options to choose from. Missions to launch or maintain satellites, urgent missions to rescue crippled spacecraft before they burn up in atmosphere, missions to take particular types of science readings from specific locations on planets, etc.

This most closely represents my opinion.

Like Solusphere, I don't particularly like the test contracts. On the other hand, like Wanderfound quoted above, I think that the contract system needs more variety. Removing this one type of contract will detract from that variety, so in my opinion would be a bad thing.

[bdito]

The developers know they can't please everyone so the only option is to leave it all in and let the gamer choose which contracts to take on. I agree that they're quite limited ATM.

The suggestions regarding new contracts to implement is quite numerous.

Think of it as an alpha. They'll be improving the contract system going forward. You can always install mods to improve the contract system it if you can't wait.

[BlackAdder128]

The developers know they can't please everyone so the only option is to leave it all in and let the gamer choose which contracts to take on. I agree that they're quite limited ATM.

The suggestions regarding new contracts to implement is quite numerous.

Think of it as an alpha. They'll be improving the contract system going forward. You can always install mods to improve the contract system it if you can't wait.

It is an alpha, and so I'll give most people the benefit of the doubt that any criticism is meant to be constructive, things to consider while the system is still in flux and changes are not as costly as they will later become.

[Murph]

I think it would be a huge mistake to remove part testing. It's generally a quite reasonable and realistic way to provide a source of funding and science points. Sure, some of the offered contracts might be unprofitable, silly, crazy, or whatever, but that's something which can be fine tuned in later releases, and it's not entirely unrealistic for some offered contracts to be crappy (such things happen in the real world, and real companies/agencies have to pick and choose the contracts which are both appropriate and viable for them). The key reason why they absolutely should not be removed is that it's clear that there are many people who enjoy the challenge presented by them (I see your "ton of gamers" who don't like them, and raise you several tons who probably either like them or are happy to decline any that sound unprofitable or tiresome), and they can be declined without penalty by those who don't like the sound of a particular contract.

Other than in the early stages of career mode (where you have far less choice of parts, etc), the key is mostly to find ways to clear Kerbin testing contracts for near zero cost. My approach to this is either by reducing the mission to fuel-only by being 100% recoverable (the Ravenspear Mk3 and Aeris 4A provide an excellent starting point for sub-orbital and orbital testing of small parts); or vastly reduced cost, by completing 3 or 4 contracts in a single mission or incidentally to something you're wanting to do anyway. Pretty much all of my launches only cost fuel plus a small number of SRBs, with the main launcher achieving circular LKO then parachuting back to KSC after detaching payload.

If something should change here, a more useful change which would look towards the entire player base would be to provide contract preferences, to let you specify the broad types of contract that you are willing to consider. I.e. saving you from having to decline contract types that you hate, etc.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Am I in the minority in that I actually enjoy part tests? Kerbin flight ones give me an excuse to take my plane for a spin and I like that.

[Murph]

Am I in the minority in that I actually enjoy part tests? Kerbin flight ones give me an excuse to take my plane for a spin and I like that.

I sincerely doubt that we're in a minority in finding some of the part testing fun. They have given me an excuse to practice some fancy aerobatics (and tuning my planes for same), to the point where I'm routinely pulling off 9-10g Immelmans and Split Ss after the test for the return to KSC. Aerobatics are so much harder when you don't have your stomach and butt sensors aiding you (I've flown aerobatics for real, although max around 3-4g peak), but still a whole load of fun when you get good at them. It's safe to say that my KSP piloting skills have vastly improved directly as a result of flying short contract sorties, either testing, or rescue-cabbie (a tweaked Aeris 4A with 2nd cockpit is perfect for fuel-only rescues) to LKO and back.

Some part tests are crappy, annoying, or unprofitable, but that's a minority of them, not the majority. Mostly I feel it's a good part of the system and a very useful income stream, plus a welcome bit of variety to fit in between exploration. Easy contracts local to Kerbin provide the funding for more lavish interplanetary missions, like spending about 2 mil on sending a full station, lander, probes, fuel dump, etc out to another planet.