Contracts must not have science as reward or contracts have to be separated by reward

[ddenis]

Purpose of this topic isn't discussing overall balance funds-science, but getting attention to the problem described below.

Game settings:

Hard mode.

50% science/funds/reputation and 200% penalties.

Enabled strategy: 25% reputation -> science

Problem:

Contracts brings more science then experiments do. Don't need to run experiments for getting science.

Examples:

- Getting data from space around Minmus contract:

- Position a satellite around Minmus contract:

In comparation a Mun Goo report:

Even if I got full Goo report from high above Mun via returning it to Kerbin it wouldn't be more then 20.

On hard level for upgrading R&D I have to complete 7-10 satellite launching contracts, calculating science given for them: more than 500 science without doing any researches and it's only for updating one building.

Do you have any reason to run experiments when doing contracts gives you more science? (Role playing is a good reason, but not obligatory)

Solutions:

I see two solutions:

• Science must not be given as reward for contracts. Science can be received only via experiments.
  
• Contracts have to be separated by reward: commercial contracts (give funds and reputation), research/experiment contracts (give science and reputation)*.
  
• Another solution you can think of.
  

* Research/experiment contracts - science reward is given as % of science received from an experiment.

What I mean (Example! Other variants are possible!):

Contract: Return science from high space around Kerbin.

Reward: 25% (or 300%) of science retrieved by experiment which fulfilled this contract. Also gives reputation based on the science. No funds are given, only expenses.

Additionally:

• I agree, that with Hard settings science is 1/2 reduced comparing to the funds reduced to 1/4, and it leads to getting twice as much science compering to funds as I can have on Normal difficulty level.
  
• Yes, I can turn off reputation->science strategy, but amount of science received from satellite launch is still bigger than received from an experiment.
  

Q&A:

Q: Why I always say "% from done experiments".

A: Because this would push players to do different experiments for contracts like "get science from low orbit" if they want to maximize profit.

It's an idea of

Right now contracts are in the middle, they give you everything at the same time.

Edited December 21, 2014 by ddenis

[Carmoldu]

It makes total sense. I also thought that science rewards are way to high.

PD: it is not REWORD, it is REWARD!!

[ddenis]

PD: it is not REWORD, it is REWARD!!

Thanks, fixed.

[Anquietas314]

The problem is actually much more serious than you make it sound: the funds->science strategy is completely overpowered. 10,000 funds from a 100k contract? Bam, have 300 science - and that's only on 10%!! On hard!!!

[Superfluous J]

I've barely done any science (except to complete a contract) on Normal and am now accruing a surplus as I wait to have the $3mil+ available to upgrade the R&D complex before I can research anything else.

[ddenis]

The problem is actually much more serious than you make it sound: the funds->science strategy is completely overpowered. 10,000 funds from a 100k contract? Bam, have 300 science - and that's only on 10%!! On hard!!!

I agree that there are problems with balance between funds/science/reputation, but in this case i wanted to emphasize this particular problem, because for the hole balance topic already exist several discussions. That's why I spoke only about ways of receiving science.

Edited December 20, 2014 by ddenis

[Anquietas314]

I've barely done any science (except to complete a contract) on Normal and am now accruing a surplus as I wait to have the $3mil+ available to upgrade the R&D complex before I can research anything else.

Interesting... my second R&D upgrade costs twice that, on Hard. I guess that confirms building costs are changed by difficulty (knowing how much I pay attention to the difficulty sliders, there's probably one there for buildings and I'm just being stupid)

I agree that there problems with balance between funds/science/reputation, but in this case i wanted to emphasize this particular problem, because for the hole balance topic already exist several discussions. That's why speak only about ways of receiving science.

Yeah, overall I think either contracts should have a very small science reward (say for the test part ones) that can't be modified by strategies, or none at all. I really don't see any other way you could solve this without nerfing the strategies to the point of uselessness (many of them already are pretty useless).

Edited December 20, 2014 by armagheddonsgw

[ddenis]

Interesting... my second R&D upgrade costs twice that, on Hard. I guess that confirms building costs are changed by difficulty (knowing how much I pay attention to the difficulty sliders, there's probably one there for buildings and I'm just being stupid)

The "Funds penalties" slider influences on building cost, I heard that.

[Unfawkable]

Completely agreed, I don't even carry more science equipment with me anymore. Contracts need to give no science, or just have separate contracts that give science only.

[Empiro]

I'd actually prefer to see things swing the other way around -- reduce science from experiments, and increase it from contracts.

Why do I say this? I think science right now is way too much of a grind -- go here, click a bunch of time. Wait a bit, click a bunch more times.

Especially with the new biomes in .90, biome hopping to collect science isn't fun or challenging. Instead, have contracts that ask you to do a specific set of experiments at a particular biome (or series of biomes), and give me a big science reward for it.

[Anquietas314]

I'd actually prefer to see things swing the other way around -- reduce science from experiments, and increase it from contracts.

Why do I say this? I think science right now is way too much of a grind -- go here, click a bunch of time. Wait a bit, click a bunch more times.

Especially with the new biomes in .90, biome hopping to collect science isn't fun or challenging. Instead, have contracts that ask you to do a specific set of experiments at a particular biome (or series of biomes), and give me a big science reward for it.

Action groups. Action groups solve your problem (of course, you need to upgrade the VAB to top tier first, but that's not insanely expensive).

[ddenis]

I'd actually prefer to see things swing the other way around -- reduce science from experiments, and increase it from contracts.

Why do I say this? I think science right now is way too much of a grind -- go here, click a bunch of time. Wait a bit, click a bunch more times.

Especially with the new biomes in .90, biome hopping to collect science isn't fun or challenging. Instead, have contracts that ask you to do a specific set of experiments at a particular biome (or series of biomes), and give me a big science reward for it.

Let me change you words a little bit and you can agree or disagree with my interpretation:

• Have to be contracts which require science activity. E.g. +300% of sum of science received from experiments done for this contract?
  
• And you don't mind that only science contract have to give science. And they don't give you money, only science and reputation.
  
• At the same time, other contracts would give you only funds and reputation.
  

Is such system ok for you?

Edited December 20, 2014 by ddenis

[ddenis]

Q&A:

Q: Why I always say "% from done experiments".

A: Because this would push players to do different experiments for contracts like "get science from low orbit" if they want to maximize profit.

[WanderingKid]

I've always felt the Science Grind was just in the way. The tree needs a rebalance, sure, but that's only part of it. Understand that no matter how you look at it, it's strange.

You research temperature on Minmus... to create a bigger gas tank and rocket.

You research gravity near Jool... to get wings for Kerbin.

Or even not commenting on the abstractions involved, NASA doesn't do a lot with the results it gets from its readings, JPL (and others) do.

I wouldn't mind seeing research missions, though. They should be 'tack on' parts from other companies. Example: Duna colonization might like to know the gravity, soil density, atmo pressure, and maybe how some materials act at the gravity in a certain area (biome). Get us that information and they'll share research they've done into other things (abstracted science points).

I personally dislike the science grind, though. The entire idea of 'Science Bombs' seems silly to me, though, and I'd love to see the entire plan revisited. Right now the Funds -> Science is overpowered and needs to be dragged into a reasonable level, but I am against the advocation of outright removal. I want to avoid that grind, personally. The Tycoon mode holds a LOT more of my interest.

[Anquietas314]

Or even not commenting on the abstractions involved, NASA doesn't do a lot with the results it gets from its readings, JPL (and others) do.

Well, one could make the argument that the player is in charge of all of those combined (perhaps this is what you meant by abstraction). Don't JPL do most of the legwork for building rockets/rovers/etc anyway? I do see what you're saying though, and I agree to an extent with most of it

[MKI]

Arguing the logic of the science tech tree (how does learning this get me this) is pointless, this is just a game. Kerbals scientists work different then ours ok?

Now back onto the original topic.

Should contracts have a science component?

My answer is No, but having them doesn't break the game.

Personally getting science in this game is behind getting funds at almost any stage.

Currently you spend science on this:

1. More tech for your rockets

2. Admin building

And you spend funds on this:

1. Rocket parts

2. Building upgrades

3. Admin building

Now the priority seems to be you need a lot more funds over science, or reputation (its fairly gray)

Especially because now you need to spend a lot of cash on upgrading the buildings. Which is almost necessary especially early.

Now onto how contracts give more science than actual science experiments. This in my opinion is not very important for the after mentioned fact you will need more funds in the end than science points. But it does make science experiments not as useful, especially compared to their weight. There also is the science block you will meet around mid game that is upgrading the science center to get higher tech.

In the end, especially on hard difficulty I can only see science experiments being useful for later, when contracts are given out further, or when you need a large science mission to advance in your tech. Otherwise going after contracts for more funds efficiently is better than going after those same contracts while also going after science at the same time.

[Anquietas314]

MKI: I don't think anyone was arguing the logic of the tech tree itself, rather how science works and science/contracts work together. At the moment it is far, far too easy to abuse the science from contracts to complete the tech tree very quickly. A lot of this is due to strategies, but as OP said the focus of this thread should be that contracts pay more science than experiments in many cases, even before the strategies apply. I don't agree that the solution is to ban all science from contracts or to have separate funds and science contracts, but this does need to be addressed.

As an example of a contract that should have both, testing a part should pay you a decent amount of money for doing it, as well as reward some science gained from the research.

[255]

Why should a contract give you science in the first place? Only if they actually give you an experiment module and say "hey put that into orbit and see what happens". There are mods for that IIRC, and it should actually be stock in the game. So you could implement the second "solution":

Contracts have to be separated by reward: commercial contracts (give funds and reputation), research/experiment contracts (give science and reputation)*.

[ddenis]

I don't agree that the solution is to ban all science from contracts or to have separate funds and science contracts, but this does need to be addressed.

Agree, my two solutions aren't obligatory, I wrote what I had on mind, but other solutions are valid as well as far as they can solve the problem.

[Empiro]

Action groups. Action groups solve your problem (of course, you need to upgrade the VAB to top tier first, but that's not insanely expensive).

I definitely use this, but unless you get a mod that moves science for you, you still need to collect the science manually and transfer it. In addition, it doesn't help with all the crew reports for "space low over <biome>". When you get the Gravioli detector, things get even worse because you now have "space high over <biome>".

You're definitely right that I don't have to grind science like this -- and indeed in my last campaign I didn't. I ONLY did science when a contract specified that I needed to, or one that asked me to land somewhere (and only using Kerbals and science instruments that have mass and size like Goo / Science Jr), and relied on that and contract science awards to advance the tech tree. It was a far more enjoyable experience, which is why I'd hate to see science rewards from contracts reduced or taken away.

Let me change you words a little bit and you can agree or disagree with my interpretation:

• Have to be contracts which require science activity. E.g. +300% of sum of science received from experiments done for this contract?
  
• And you don't mind that only science contract have to give science. And they don't give you money, only science and reputation.
  
• At the same time, other contracts would give you only funds and reputation.
  

Is such system ok for you?

That's a fine idea I think. I like the idea of having contracts that give science, and contracts that give money.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Empiro

[Anquietas314]

I definitely use this, but unless you get a mod that moves science for you, you still need to collect the science manually and transfer it. In addition, it doesn't help with all the crew reports for "space low over <biome>"

You can just transmit crew reports; they're always a 100% return rate.

When you get the Gravioli detector, things get even worse because you now have "space high over <biome>"

Well, yes okay that's a legitimate problem, although since Gravioli detectors are physicsless parts, the only thing stopping you from slapping 20 of them on the ship is that they're expensive

On a sidenote... why the hell are (completely) physicsless parts a thing?!

[Empiro]

I actually meant EVA reports, which can be transmitted, but they also require way more clicks to do:

EVA, right click Kerbal, click "EVA report", fumble around so that you can grab back on the capsule, press F, press F, right click capsule, click stored reports, click transmit.

It gets worse if you don't have a mod that shows what biome you're over, so you have to keep trying. I suppose all this is more of a Kerbal UI issue than anything else, but you get the point -- doing the above process a dozen times isn't fun at all, and I definitely enjoyed the game more when I limited myself to getting science as part of a contract reward or when the contract asks for it.

[Norpo]

At first, I thought this was a terrible idea, then I saw the venn diagram, and realized that it's actually a clever way of give-and take, and it seems like it would add extra depth to the game. It would also encourage more actual exploring and doing science, and less grindy-part-satellite-whatever contracts. That said, I think some contracts SHOULD give science, like asteroid redirection missions. But maybe not on a large scale.

I like this idea.

[WanderingKid]

On a sidenote... why the hell are (completely) physicsless parts a thing?!

Unity and rounding errors on nearly inconsequential parts causing tremendous pain for little actual effect.

[Anquietas314]

Unity and rounding errors on nearly inconsequential parts causing tremendous pain for little actual effect.

There are several ways to solve that that don't involve making them physicsless. A particular example where the physicless thing actually matters: stack 50 cubic struts on the side of a rocket asymmetrically, blast off; the rocket flies perfectly straight. How that could be solved: either treat all 50 as a single part with combined physics (stops them from bending), or group them together in chunks to allow bending.

If rounding errors in particular are a problem for something like this, that usually suggests a very unstable algorithm has been used for processing the numbers (e.g. blindly adding them up). There are of course exceptions like the infamous kraken "bug" where it's a fundamental problem