Is Reputation Useless?

[Andrew Hansen]

I'm just wondering, because even after setting the reputation value all the way to -1000 (the maximum it can get) for a new save, I had access to the prestigious contracts of orbiting Kerbin and going into space! I heard rumors that reputation affected the quality of contracts you got, but that didn't seem to be the case for me!

In real life I can't imagine any companies offering contracts to a space agency with a 100% failure track record.

Or is it that the default contracts show up, but then only trivial ones after that?

Edited October 9, 2014 by Andrew Hansen

[Tex_NL]

Now with 0.25 you can exchange reputation for science and/or funds. Just check out the new administration building.

[Franklin]

The default "main story" contracts always show up, it's certain "side quest" contracts that don't show if your rep is poor.

But rep is useless because we have quickload and revert, making it very hard to ever see bad rep in realistic circumstances.

[regex]

The default "main story" contracts always show up, it's certain "side quest" contracts that don't show if your rep is poor.

^This.

But rep is useless because we have quickload and revert, making it very hard to ever see bad rep in realistic circumstances.

Those two things provide some useful functionality and the user can always change that if they want to play a harder game. Besides, with rep being interchangeable with other "currencies", starting at -1000 is definitely a harder start because you can't take advantage of a lot of strategies (especially if you lower rep rewards!)

[Franklin]

I guess that's true. My mindset of how the game presents itself with do-overs and starting conditions will need to change now that we have the starting options and sliders.

My current .25 game though is a Hard-mode game, and I started myself with a -100~ rep (new agency, no market trust) and it didn't seem to hinder me at all, and I'm gaining it quicker and quicker as missions get more and more complicated.

[JedTech]

I am playing with 40% Science and Funds gains, so I have found that Reputation is the currency I have enough of. Therefore I am using the new Administration building to use strategies that sacrifice reputation for science and funds.

[tater]

I self-police reverts to avoid just "dumb" errors (you move something on a 2d version of a rocket, but forget to put a critical piece back on, etc---or the crew defaults, whatever). A failure in flight, I let progress (were I to have any).

There is too much of everything, and too little at the same time. The tech tree doesn't make sense (they put rungs on the pod, so you can't say it's "kerbal" to not have rungs available for landers). They have batteries, but not extra batteries, etc, etc. In not many flights last night, and only doing parts contracts that could be directly incorporated into a real flight, I got solar panels, and all the stuff left of that. On Hard. No reverts, no admin building stuff. I have nearly 100k in the bank. Giving myself less money/whatever doesn't make the gameplay different and better, just tedious.

[tsotha]

I self-police reverts to avoid just "dumb" errors (you move something on a 2d version of a rocket, but forget to put a critical piece back on, etc---or the crew defaults, whatever). A failure in flight, I let progress (were I to have any).

That's what I do. The way the game keeps refilling capsules I emptied is annoying and I'll revert if I'm on a rescue mission and realize the capsule is occupied when I thought it wasn't.

[Collin Cutler]

I think the contracts will appear more often when you have better reputaton

[Andrew Hansen]

Thanks for your answers! After playing some hardcore career mode today, I've figured out that reputation is actually pretty important, and it's incredibly hard to get funds without being given prestigious contracts to make them.

[juanml82]

I self-police reverts to avoid just "dumb" errors (you move something on a 2d version of a rocket, but forget to put a critical piece back on, etc---or the crew defaults, whatever). A failure in flight, I let progress (were I to have any).

There is too much of everything, and too little at the same time. The tech tree doesn't make sense (they put rungs on the pod, so you can't say it's "kerbal" to not have rungs available for landers). They have batteries, but not extra batteries, etc, etc. In not many flights last night, and only doing parts contracts that could be directly incorporated into a real flight, I got solar panels, and all the stuff left of that. On Hard. No reverts, no admin building stuff. I have nearly 100k in the bank. Giving myself less money/whatever doesn't make the gameplay different and better, just tedious.

I tend to agree with this. Too little funds mean you loose money to do some part contracts (test separators in flight, meaning that you'll loose them, and get paid less than the part's cost) and too little science means going to the Mun without a ladder. I think it's complicated to strike a funds balance. Destroying non essential buildings at the start of the career (tracking station, astronaut complex, runway, SPH) can help making funds important

[tater]

LOL. Hadn't occurred to me to wreck the joint.

The whole campaign paradigm is bad as is. Hopefully the specifics are all placeholders.

Honestly, I was thinking the "strategies" stuff was going to be grossly different.

The strategies should really be the type of space program you are running. It can be "sliders" so obviously "gray," but in broad categories the choice at the start of a campaign should be:

National Space Program (i.e.: NASA or ESA)

This gets a budget, with the possibility of some launch contracts (add some prebuilt satellites or something to place into orbit (or even probes to be places with escape velocity for Kerbin, or even Kerbol)). The player could set objectives within that budget. There would be things pre made like "explore the Mun" but they would be renamed "goals" and have an alternate reward structure. Each tech tree node could have 2 values, one for "experimental" and the final to get it outright. Goals would give Experimental tech points based on the goal difficulty. You'd only get a few of each though (and you still need to buy them). One of each X tech used must succeed in a mission goal (achieve orbit around the Mun, for example) or there is some failure penalty. As it is bankrolled by the government, this can have high reputation to start, perhaps (make this meaningful). Assuming we build the space center at some point, you can go aero, or astro first (VAB vs Hanger).

Private Space Program (SpaceX)

This program could have an initial seed based upon difficulty settings (how rich Elon Kerman is, basically). This program could set goals like the National Space Program, but would get more contracts that look like the current career. Private entities want to test stuff. Unlike the current career, if there is a goal of Minmus from some private entity, whatever the goal is must include that entity's parts in some fashion. So the guys that make the lander can 2 pay, but their can is the lander, period. The startup starts with no rep, so doesn't get the kind of launch contracts KASA does until they have high rep. Some goals might be things like Mun landing just to get rep. Not fleshed out, but you get the idea, actually different programs.