Making contracts more consistent and logical

[Sky_walker]

I was asked to post it as a separate thread, so there we go:

Currently contracts feel arbitrary and in many cases: "silly" as someone else put it, discouraging players from playing career mode. Obvious example would be a contract for testing stuff on a surface of Jool... but all of these randomly generated test parts contracts have no logical background while at the same time randomization makes them feel more like a grind taken out from MMOs than anything else.

So here's my suggestion on how to improve the situation with test parts contracts:

Generic idea:

Contracts should be composed of two ingredients: altitude/location + speed

Test in flight:

[lower atmosphere / upper atmosphere] + [subsonic / supersonic / hypersonic]

The range of altitudes and speeds would obviously vary depending on a body and atmosphere (as you know speed of sound varies with medium density)

Test in space (also on an bodies with no atmosphere):

[equatorial / polar] + [low orbit / high orbit / elliptical orbit] + an optional, specific case for (geo)stationary orbit, though note that not all bodies have it (possibly also Molniya orbit?)

Test landed / splashed down:

This is the most difficult one to get right. I'd propose making it biome-dependent and picking a pool of specific biomes with a generic intent of giving one common + multiple extreme environments.

For Kerbin it could be: [KSC / Deserts / IceCaps / Water]

For Mun it could be: [Midlands / Poles]

For Minimus: [Flats* / Poles] *flats = any biome with "flat" in a name - should be easier to code in than creating groups of biomes (unless they already exist? I don't know). You could add "crater" in a similar way.

For a tests of landing gears and wheels on a non-water surface: speed should be a factor (see: goals, point 4)

Obviously parts should be a subject to the filtering, much like they are now, so that player wouldn't struggle with contracts that should be impossible to complete, such as landed on the sun/jool, splashed down on a bodies with no water (eg. Duna) or geostationary orbit contracts on a bodies that don't have stationary orbits (such as Moho), or contracts that don't make much sense, such as testing chutes while landed on the Mun or testing landing gears in water.

Rewards also need to scale correctly, so that subsonic test would yield much lower reward than hypersonic flight. For parts that are activated through staging - (dry) mass could be a factor in assigning rewards.

It'd be also good to lower the amount of contracts player is given for testing of a parachutes and decouplers - which right now seem to make up a vast portion of contracts while at the same time being super-easy and oddly pointless to accomplish (add contracts for testing of the scientific equipment replacing some of the decouplers in contract spawn frequency?)

Goals:

- Teach players something new through the contracts.

In case of flight contracts - we teach them how sound barrier depends on atmospheric density and how difficult it might be to achieve certain speeds with large test cargo (note that this has a potential of offering a whole lot of additional challenges with reentry heat mechanics implemented into the game and a hypersonic flight tests)

In case of space contracts - we teach them how different types of orbits are named and how to achieve them.

In case of "landed" contracts - we teach them an accurate descend trajectories (exception being Kerbin KSC & Water tests left in the game as a way for new players to earn cash - these should be dominant especially in the very beginning of the research tree)

- Minimize the grind

Less arbitrary contracts mean that you have easier time fulfilling few of them in a single flight while also giving an interesting challenges in rocket design if player chooses to test few heavy/large parts to test in one go - that's also why the amount of contracts for decouplers would need to be lowered, as they are massless parts in KSP therefore being way, way too easy to test. (I'd prefer if player wouldn't see any contracts for massless parts).

- Make contracts more logical

You can't really make a backstory for current, randomly generated contracts to make them feel natural and logical in the game - therefore adding contracts described in more logical way using real scientific (while at the same time known to the wide public) terms would make them much more user-friendly and immersive.

- Give people a reason to build rovers

Contracts to test gear bays and rover wheels could (should?) be used as a perfect opportunity to give people a reason to build rovers and send them into a different locations/biomes. This would open a whole new set of challenges for both: new and old players and basically be a story on it's own.

Additional suggestion:

- For subsonic/supersonic/hypersonic contracts display a speed limits in a real time (so player could observe how it changes with altitude) and add an additional information in the contract description informing player about the relation between speed of sound and atmospheric density to make sure that player understands what's going on. (For example: "Kerbin upper atmosphere supersonic flights are easiest to accomplish just above 18 km, the higher you go, the higher the speed required to break the sound barrier due to lower atmospheric density")

- For contracts with specific orbits - include windows for accuracy (eg. Kerbin low equatorial orbit should be circular (+-30%) between 68 and 250 km AP&PE with +-20 degree inclination) and an illustration in the contract description showing how orbit is suppose to look like. Additional, helpful hint could be a real time display of desired and current AP/PE/inclination in the contract description, though it is not necessary if a proper windows of accuracy are set.

- Avoid spawning contracts for massless parts. It negates an important part of a challenge in the design and leads to rare problems with people trying to balance craft with mass parts unknowingly unbalancing them.

And on unrelated note:

- One "plant flag" contract per moon or planet, please.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Kegereneku]

I have to admit that I hate Procedurally Generated content when it only feel like an advanced form of laziness.

There is MANY part-testing contract I will never take because I can't possibly carryout along something else, because they aren't interesting in themselves, and because the penalty isn't worth to getting free-access to a part sooner.

I like to think the Devs just didn't get the time to do it yet, and we are only seeing the placeholder and they really planned an use for satellite later.

But just in case : Here is some short suggestions :

- Make part-test contract simpler with less silly fine-print (like test a Lv909 engine at an altitude between 10km and 10.01km, and a speed between 500m/s and 501m/s), more like (test the Lv909 in orbit.... that's all.)

- Make some filter so part are being used in actually good situation (booster as a first stage, lv909 in space)

- ...start making delivery contract requiring to put complex object/satellite at the right altitude so I(we) feel doing like something actually intelligent and worth it.

[mdosogne]

Try the fine-print mod.

Edited October 11, 2014 by mdosogne
added link

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

What I would like is a 'realistic' option for career mode, where unrandom contracts would make your space program realistic.

Courrently, you can get a ridiculously high ammout of credits comparing to science points, as I experience. Contracts force you to build unstable and unlogical rockets such as testing SRBs on escape tarjectories, or lower-stage nuclear engines, or wheels on lander capsules, but I think 'stupid' rockets like that are the style of this game.

My idea is a hard, realistic game mode where you get nearly the same ammout of credits for each successful explorer (science earner) mission (going to other planets) as a support, making it easy to get to an orbit, and get science there, and after 2-3 launches to orbit, wich for you could get paid, (maybe have a rendezvous contract there?) you can manage it for a larger mission to the Mün/Minmus, and get lots of science.

Than, with lots of science and less credits, you have enough parts for several fine-print mod like credit-earner missions (wich for you would not get the support/mission payment) like 'Dock this modul to my space station' and 'Rescure X;Y ( from a broken ship maybe)' but mostly orbit pre-made satellites/ships, wich are useless for you, but you could get paid, and manage the crew replacement, and life support updates of others' space stations for money.

After a few rocket launches for others, you could have enough money for your larger own projects, wich with, you could get some more science for new parts (For example, manned Minmus mission, unmanned Duna rover, ect.) or your own space station(s), capable of earning science, or crdits, slowly, with special modules: A space station lab, wich would slowly produce science, or credits from lots of electricity ( you would need a few solar arrays), continously replaced crew (after 1/2 years, they would stop working effectively), and from manually replaced experiments/<something indrustal activity here> ( You would have an experiment-container item, something like a fuel tank, wich in, you transport up several experiments, and return those wich were completed. Revovering a container with completed experimens/produced materials gives you the science/credit.). Labs would do these very slowly, but when you are flying at full time warp to other planets, stopping to refresh your station would give pleasant science/credits. For long-term planning.

Long planetary missions would need special life support and larger ships, so you would need to get that money first.

Summarization: You get science from exploration missions, and you need a few credit-earner missions to get the money for science missions. If you have some shuttles/planes, you will get money faster and need less of these. Going further means more science, wich from you unlock better/bigger parts, and from better/bigger parts, you get even more money from credit-earner missions, and from even more money, you can go even further, and get even more science, and... ...expand like this. The small money support ables a good start, and could adjust the difficulity. In a mode like I described, I'd really feel I'm managing my own space program.

I hope you liked it.