To those who think part test contracts should be removed... Please read.

[Murph]

It's like a restaurant patron telling the waiter, "this soup is a bit too salty" and the waiter saying, "well, that's how the soup comes and I like it that way. Don't like it? ORDER SOMETHING ELSE!"

Sorry, but it's really more like a vegetarian complaining about the chicken soup containing meat.

Many of us enjoy a large proportion of the part test contracts (some are crappy, impossible, annoying, unprofitable, or whatever; but many are a fun challenge for useful income). What may be needed, however, is some sort of preference system to allow people to specify broad classes of contract that they never want to see (e.g. I mostly like the part test contracts, but might want to set it to auto-decline anything which rewards less than 10k or 50k funds, for example).

Or, answer this: Given that there's absolutely zero downside or penalty from declining or ignoring a contract offer, what's the problem with saying that you should just decline/ignore them? For me, the good part testing contracts have funded lavish interplanetary exploration missions, sending full stations with labs, lander, probes, fuel dump, large nuclear tugs to haul them, etc.

None of the contract system is perfect right now, it could all use some refinement/enhancement, but I think it's bizarre for people to be calling for the removal of basically half the contracts available like this, and that many people clearly find interesting/fun. Part testing is quite realistic, and provides some good interesting challenges (as well as some crappy contracts which should be ignored/declined, but that's realistic too). Hopefully we'll see additional contract types in future releases, which should give more choice.

[Nathair]

I really feel the need to respond to all the posters saying, "nobody is forcing you to take part test contracts. Ignore them or go play sandbox!" That's not the point. Those of us who dislike the testing contracts probably actually *don't* accept them. I for one have enough funds from exploration contracts to not have to do any part tests at all. The point is that we want KSP to be all it can be -- a fun game with an interesting and challenging career mode. When people offer constructive criticism, they are potentially helping the game. The, "don't like it, don't play it!" attitude IMO is actually NOT constructive, neither to the game nor to the discussion.

You're completely missing the other thing we are saying, the important bit; we like the test contracts.

It's like a restaurant patron telling the waiter, "this soup is a bit too salty" and the waiter saying, "well, that's how the soup comes and I like it that way. Don't like it? ORDER SOMETHING ELSE!"

That's not quite right. The waiter is saying "Well, I'm sorry you didn't like it, that soup is a very popular item." What would you expect? Would you expect a restaurant to modify it's existing menu to suit you? Do you really think that because you prefer strawberry McDonalds is just going to discontinue chocolate shakes to save you the trouble of not choosing them? That's the point of a menu, these things are options, they allow someone to offer different things that appeal to different people. So, if you don't like what you are choosing to do, just stop choosing it, please don't tell me that none of us should be able to choose what you don't like.

[Xavven]

That's not quite right. The waiter is saying "Well, I'm sorry you didn't like it, that soup is a very popular item." What would you expect? Would you expect a restaurant to modify it's existing menu to suit you? Do you really think that because you prefer strawberry McDonalds is just going to discontinue chocolate shakes to save you the trouble of not choosing them? That's the point of a menu, these things are options, they allow someone to offer different things that appeal to different people. So, if you don't like what you are choosing to do, just stop choosing it, please don't tell me that none of us should be able to choose what you don't like.

Okay, this soup analogy is getting out of hand and some of you are putting words in my mouth, so allow me to clarify my position. I'm not suggesting removing part test contracts and I don't think the majority of anyone on the criticism side is, either. A statement like "we like the test contracts" is valid feedback, and so is "this part test contract makes no sense." Please don't make a dismissive comment like, "don't like it, don't play it," which I feel is akin to saying, "your feedback is not valid."

Good developers like to hear feedback on both the positive and negative aspects of their game so they can improve it. Back to the restaurant analogy, the cook can either get defensive about it and dismiss the customer's feedback, or s/he can, oh I don't know, add a vegetarian soup to the menu and tweak the saltiness to appeal to the greatest number of people.

I have personally posted multiple suggestions in other threads on better contacts to put into the system, and I've read countless other post from others doing the same, ranging from space station building, satellite launches, satellite repair, and gathering of very specific scientific data (instead of your 100th temperature reading from that cheap satellite you launched 10 game years ago), and so on. Criticizing the more outlandish part tests is my way of saying, "Squad, part testing leaves something to be desired, why don't you add THIS to the contacts 'menu'?"

[Murph]

Okay, this soup analogy is getting out of hand and some of you are putting words in my mouth, so allow me to clarify my position. I'm not suggesting removing part test contracts and I don't think the majority of anyone on the criticism side is, either. A statement like "we like the test contracts" is valid feedback, and so is "this part test contract makes no sense." Please don't make a dismissive comment like, "don't like it, don't play it," which I feel is akin to saying, "your feedback is not valid."

I can't argue with that. My comment above is in the context of the thread title "…test contracts should be removed". Some people do seem to have been calling for complete removal of part testing, and that's what I have an issue with. Improving the part testing contracts, yeah I'm all for that. Part of me does think though, that there should be some crappy and nonsense contracts offered, as that is actually realistic â€â€.real companies do from time to time put out bonkers contract offers with absurdly low rewards, nonsense conditions, etc. Courts will void individual terms or entire contracts based on unconscionability, but otherwise it's generally tough if you accept a contract and later regret it (without terms allowing for later renegotiation, statutory or common law requirements, force majeure, etc). I think that part of the game should be evaluating the offered contracts and only accepting those that are actually good.

Broader variety of contract types: YES!

Tweaking the contract generation: YES!

Providing some user preferences: YES!

Removal of part testing: NO!

[Nathair]

My comment above is in the context of the thread title "…test contracts should be removed".

Mine too, oddly enough...

[juanml82]

On the flip side, the engineer nerd in me would like to see a mod with parts development. "Hold this finicky prototype nuclear engine at a specified ennvelope on the test stand for a certain number of tests without blowing up, and you can use it in flight." I would in no way wish that on the core game, because I can hear eyelids shuttering from people reading that from here, but it'd be kind of cool to me to be able to invest say science points and funds, or, through repeated testing, to raise the stability and efficiency of parts.

Well, you don't need to test a part several times, but the current system let's you use a part before it's available. We can think of it as a prototype. I've left the nuclear technology for the last because I was using "experimental" nuclear engines because I had a contract to test them (which I didn't complete until I had the entire tech tree researched and enough research to unlock nukes).

That's actually nice - while you're still starting a career, you can hope you'll get a contract in a part you don't yet have so you can use it, and hope the randomly generated part test contracts would give you a useful part instead of the engine for ants, whatever it's called. OTOH, it would be nice if the contracts for ion engines included one of the xenon containers - you can complete the contracts, but you can't use the ion engine until you research that tech anyway. Then again, it's the ion engine...

Lol ya I've had one along those lines. you prety much need to go way up and crash dive into the atmo from interplanetary return speeds or higher while thrusting all the way down. Dont plan on recovering any of that ship, your either going to miss time it and plow earth or you'll get it right and the ship will rip apart when the chute deploys causeing you to plow earth.

It is complicated but, come to think of it, it is the kind of test a parachute would be subject to. And, beyond the test, for those inclined, meeting those conditions is a challenge in itself.

I dont think they should be removed.. I think they just need some serious tweaking which was to be expected with randomly generated contracts.

There is one thing we really need though and that is difficulty setting for the contracts. Right now it seems way too easy to earn money/funding.

I wish it was possible to actually screw up and go bankrupt.

IMO, it should be included as a simple difficulty setting. You want to risk bankruptcy, select hard difficulty. You don't want to care too much about money, you choose easy difficulty.

I think contracts need a better GUI. When I want to complete them, I usually try to accomplish several contracts in one mission. And I think a larger panel, where you can arrange it fully, hide those you aren't completing in that mission and you can write down notes would be nice to have. And have it available both in the SPH/VAB and in flight. Of course, there is a "mod" for that, and it's called "use pen and paper", but I am that lazy.

[Beowolf]

We do not play Kerbal Space Program to...

These are the sorts of things that players play KSP for.

Giving feedback is great, but you don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. You don't know whether "the majority" have even tried a career game yet.

I liked your new contract ideas, and agree contracts still need some work. How could it be otherwise? It's their first try. Personally I enjoy the test contracts, but they're too easy. I can usually slap together a quick test vehicle that lets me complete several tests in a single short flight. Once I completed eight contracts, six of them tests, in one carefully-planned launch. Took some serious work, but it all felt worthwhile when it finally paid off.

Who said you have to take the contracts you don't like? There are aspects of KSP I don't like, and I just don't play them. I doubt I've spent more than two hours in SPH since it was released. I had to learn real aerodynamics to get a pilot's license, and hate KSP's arcade-game flight model. But you won't see me trying to get SPH removed just because I don't like it!

Edited August 9, 2014 by Beowolf

[henryrasia]

Hey, people! Here's a real life example:

In the Apollo missions, the objective was only to get people there and back safely, but some people wanted experiments there, so NASA had to figure them into the craft volume and weight and mission tasks (time to set up experiment is time of oxygen needed). Also, someone wanted flags to be placed in ALL Apollo landings (1 wasn't enough?) for no other reason than to rub it in the soviets' faces, so NASA had to figure them into the craft volume and weight and mission tasks. Nowadays, people can buy in space in the ISS or any space launch, and the engineers need to figure out the fuel requirement and flight profile then (which IRL is much more delicate then on KSP).

KSP's system tries to have you save up contracts for when you go somewhere. So dragging a jet engine to minmus in of itself is pretty useless and stupid, but the point is to get the "land on minmus" "orbit minmus" "get minmus science" etc objectives AND THEN drag the jet engine along.

The other example OP mentioned is building a big airplane capable of fast and high flight (there's the challenge), and then strapping all you parachutes/decloupers/etc in the cargo bay, fly to the specified location, firing away, and landing back for minimum waste of funds. This is really good and I don't know how I didn't think of that before!

Sure, the system isn't perfect, but the logic is solid. So please stop complaining about it as a whole. I hope this clarifies.