Editing The Staging Sequence In Flight: Exploit Or Not?

[Torquemadus]

This may be an exploit, or it may not. However, most players don't seem to know about it one way or the other and it has game balance implications.

I first noticed this method in 0.25 and took some pics, which are shown below. This method makes it much easier to complete test contracts for a wide variety of engines, including solid rockets.

I accepted a contract to test the LFB in flight. The LFB has to be activated via the staging sequence. After launching, I edited the staging sequence in flight to add an extra stage event. This allowed me to "activate" the LFB by pressing the spacebar when I reached the required conditions. This allowed me to complete the contract using nothing but the LFB for propulsion. I then recovered the LFB close to the KSC, meaning that I got most of the cost of the craft back.

I was playing on custom difficulty, but it was still a huge payday for my programme.

Here's another example from a later save. The contract asked me to test the LFB on a Mun escape trajectory. Most of the propulsion needed to complete the contract came from the LFB itself. Note that I was doing some other contracts on the same flight, which is why the ion engine and decoupler are attached to the nose. I completed the contract and recovered the craft to the runway.

Since 0.90 was released, a lot of players have been commenting that they had to abandon contracts like these because they couldn't afford the cost of the enormous rocket they think they need to launch the part to meet the conditions. The question is whether editing the staging sequence is a legitimate method or an exploit. If it's not an exploit, then players should be made aware that this technique is available, as it makes a huge difference to the profitability of test contracts and has game balance implications.

[UmbralRaptor]

It's a feature that's been around for ages.

[Norpo]

In normal gameplay, assuming you're not doing it to do a test contract; in my opinion it's totally fine.

I tend to try to avoid doing it for test contracts, though. Makes them too easy in some cases. (i'm completely fine if other people do it though.)

[Epthelyn]

Everything that can be done with staging (activating engines, firing decouplers etc.) can be done manually (right clicking) or using action groups at any time. They just allow an ordered activation of multiple parts, so it makes sense that you should be able to order them mid-flight - it's not as if you're reattaching boosters you've dropped, and it's not as if an in-flight computer in real life couldn't do exactly the same thing.

[panzer1b]

Editing staging in flight is rather useful for me (ive always done it as docking stuff to another ship always messed up the weapons firing sequencer), and it isnt really an exploit.

Personally ive done this a few times (as its rather annoying to have to do it any other way), but who knows, its not like i really liked the "test part" contracts too much (love the new stuff they added), so it doesnt affect me personally by much if anything

[Bill Phil]

I just think that having to test things through the staging sequence doesn't make sense. I think that as long as the other things, like altitude and speed.

[MKI]

It's a feature that's been around for ages.

Yup, its even in the demo thats back from .18 or so.

Its not an exploit. Its how the game has been for a while haha

[zarakon]

IMO, having an engine active at all under the test conditions should count as completion. They should also all have the "Run Test" function available in the context menu (some currently don't have this)

[vexx32]

Considering it's a feature they spent time specifically adding into the flight scene, it can hardly be called an exploit. It's not something that happened accidentally.

[Torquemadus]

To clarify: I'm not asking whether editing the staging sequence is in itself an exploit. I'm asking whether using it to complete test contracts is an exploit.

I've spotted quite a few posts from new players complaining that testing a BACC booster in flight is too hard. This is because they think they have to haul the part unused up to the required altitude and speed before igniting it, requiring them to build a large rocket to carry it there, whereas in fact the BACC itself can be used to get there and simply "activated" through the staging sequence. I myself didn't immediately figure out how to do this.

I personally don't see this method as an exploit. However, I don't think that this method has been clearly pointed out to new players.

[Torquemadus]

As an aside, I've found another possible exploit. By placing a manned spacecraft in Mun polar orbit at the correct altitude, I can overfly all of the possible Mun survey contract locations without expending any fuel. Every time I complete the contract, I'm immediately offered another one.

[aleis]

A similar approach can be done by right clicking the booster and "activate engine" then when you get to altitude hitting space bar to actually stage the engine, which does nothing now add it is already active.

[samstarman5]

I definitely have nothing against using a little razzle-dazzle to accomplish a part testing contract. Most of those now don't even pay much for finishing them. I actually am starting to question their point, myself, especially when quite a number of them aren't even for demonstrating their actual use. Which, given the space program we are operating here, does have some relevance in that. Can't blame a kerbal for wanting to know if a landing gear can run on water.

I wouldn't worry about changing up your staging sequence in-flight to finish a testing contract. If it concerns you too much, don't do it. If it actually doesn't, don't worry about being called out on it.

Something to remember here, is we are playing in a game world where one could actually push their craft into Kerbin atmospheric reentry with just their EVA gear, or even do the same with rotating their craft fast enough, and hitting a stage separation at just the right time.

Heck, there are some people in the real world who figured out how to fit a square peg into a round hole, during a lunar flight, in order to maintain life support for three brave souls. I would definitely say that helps justify changing staging sequence to achieve an outcome. Even if it isn't under duress.

[pincushionman]

For some engines, specifically liquid-fuel ones, which are supposed to be able to be throttled and started/stopped at will, I don't see the difference between using the stage sequence and deactivating/activating with the RMB. "They" want to know if their engine behaves as intended under certain flight conditions. However, for solid boosters, which are light-once-and-go, and there is no meaningful way to re-ignite them, I would consider it an exploit.

[Wallygator]

Not an exploit. Definitely not. Reprogramming vehicle software inflight is a matter of fact and need. Even if it's part of a test contract in my opinion.

[wolfedg]

As this is a single player game, only you the player can decide if it is an exploit.

[sal_vager]

As has been said already, it's an intended feature of the game and not an exploit, a dictionary description of exploit says it is:

: to use (someone or something) in a way that helps you unfairly

There's nothing unfair or cheaty about using a normal in-game feature...

[Maxwell Fern]

Thinking out of the box is what makes KSP so enjoyable.

The contracts says you have to test it through the staging sequence, it doesn't say anything about it not having being activated before the actual test.

[TheSandDuna]

I don't have a problem with it at all, without a contract it can help you because you sometimes make mistakes in staging that need to be fixed on the go. In reality things can be done in different orders too, so no problem.

With contracts, the reason for the activation is not specified. If the contract said to activate a "new" part and expend all the fuel to verify that this part works as advertised, then you know what is being asked by the contract, and shouldn't be moving stuff around. But nothing is KSP says that level of detail. It could be that the contract is just to prove that the engine/part CAN be activated at a certain height and speed, in which case using it as a launch vehicle for its own test would be just fine.

At least that's how I justify it to myself.

[Aragosnat]

Have to agree with Maxwell and SandDuna posts. In the contract does not say it had to be an inactive one. Also one can think of it as making sure the computer is working with staging as intended. As pilots have been known to stage one to many times. And they might need to add another stage to prevent the their stage happy fingers from staging the wrong stage to soon.

[Rasip]

Since 0.90 was released, a lot of players have been commenting that they had to abandon contracts like these because they couldn't afford the cost of the enormous rocket they think they need to launch the part to meet the conditions. The question is whether editing the staging sequence is a legitimate method or an exploit. If it's not an exploit, then players should be made aware that this technique is available, as it makes a huge difference to the profitability of test contracts and has game balance implications.

It has been mentioned once or twice

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103497-Testing-already-staged-parts?p=1606866&viewfull=1#post1606866

[Yemo]

I think restaging is not an exploit.

But staging a totally empty/unusable part is imho an exploit.

A booster test should only be successfull, if the booster is used, ie it should have to contain a small amount of fuel. So you cant use the booster before the test due to the nature of solid fuel boosters.

A rocket engine test should only be completed, if the rocket engine fires (with at least minimal fuel), ie putting the engine just between 2 parts and then staging it should not count. Of course you can use the normal engine before the test.

[Superfluous J]

Having to test in staging is the bug.

Being able to move stating around is the kludgey fix.

[X-SR71]

Being able to restage an already activated part to fulfill test contracts on certain conditions is an exploit, in my opinion. Although the contract doesn't explicitly say it needs to be an inactivated part, contracts aren't fulfilled when the part is already activated when meeting conditions. Following the same reasoning, it shouldn't be possible to trick contract completion by restaging the already activated part.

That said, the whole testing is a bit silly. Engine testing will succeed when activating the stage at the given conditions even when the throttle is at 0, effectively producing no thrust (and probably no useful scientific data )

[Liowen]

Well NASA testes booster on the ground and then in unmanned mission, but it costs them a ton of money. So I guess if you do not want to recover the pieces of the craft it would make it more real, less enjoyable in some respects but closer to real life.