Abusable Contract Mechanics

[WanderingKid]

I wanted to create a place to get all of the abusable contract mechanics in one place for review and discussion.

Note: There's been some discussion on why spammable contracts feel required and further politics of game grind. I'd hope to avoid that in this thread, as it's not focused on that topic. There are plenty of discussion threads on funds, over/under pricing of building upgrades, and the like. Please keep this to abusable contracts and possible solutions and/or explanations of further abuses. Thanks.

So far, the contracts that are the most abuseable:

[FIXED]Plant a Flag on X. (X being a foreign body)Abuse: It requires a Kerbal there with EVA ability, that's it. Contract is randomly accessible just via contract cancellation spam.

Solution in place: After the first Plant a Flag Mission on a body, all additional Plant a Flag missions will not recur until there are no Kerbals on said body.

Return science from orbit/landed:

Abuse: Does not require new science.

• Method one: Satellite with temperature gauge and single solar panel.
  
• Method two: Stayputnik on a Mk1 with battery spam/solar panel can spam crew reports.
  
• Method three: Leave a Kerbal there and EVA/Crew report transmit with battery spam or solar panel
  

Possible fixes:

• Require NEW science. Concerns: After building out a giant space station, it has no purpose. Investment should have return.
  
• Remove 'fishing' for new contracts to reduce (but not remove) abusability.
  
• Require science to be returned, not transmitted. (Possible bonus/con: Would require shuttles to Kerbin, some of which can take in game years for a transfer window.)
  

Complete multiple Satellite requests with single satellite:

Abuse: Does not require satellite to be left in orbit designated on completion, and contracts can be 'stacked' as available. These contracts all are marked as having a 'new satellite deployed' at the same time.

• Method one: Fire off lightweight satellite with necessary pieces and extra dV, move to orbit, complete, repeat for next orbit.
  
• Method three: Spaceplane with probe core moves to orbit(s) as needed, lands. Minimal expenditure.
  

Possible problem: Loss of control of satellite needs to make sure rest of ship isn't taken with it. Possible solutions include:

• Button to complete (and lose control)
  
• Require Satellite to exist in orbit for a period of time. SOI changes need to be addressed (in particular, Mun collisions) before this could be considered. Kessler Syndrome is another problem. A new tab for filtering could possibly be useful for this.
  

Confirmed not an abuse method:

• Method two: (Needs Confirmation, looks viable) Have Sat in orbit on difficult to reach body (say, Moho). Launch new satellite from Kerbin. Move Moho satellite to new orbit.
  

When positioning the satellite, even though you can 'green check' the mission from the ground with a new satellite deployment, it doesn't carry over to the mission completion tab for your old satellite. Thus, if you want a new sat contract at Moho, you're shipping a new probe core (I assume that's the part it's using as a timestamp) to Moho.

I'm sure there's more. I know the habitat, for example, can be transferred from orbit to orbit but I don't have the full details on that yet as to how abusable it is. Add to that I'm leaving tomorrow for the holidays and won't be on for a week, so I won't be able to upkeep first post past the next 24 hours or so. When I come back I'll make sure I catch up on it.

Edited December 29, 2014 by WanderingKid

[Anquietas314]

Plant a Flag on X. (X being a foreign body)

Abuse: It requires a Kerbal there with EVA ability, that's it. Contract is randomly accessible just via contract cancellation spam.

wasn't this supposed to be fixed in 0.90? I remember reading it in the changelog... perhaps I'm mistaken.

Return science from orbit/landed:

Abuse: Does not require new science.

The situation where you've already maxed out the science for a planet would need to be handled to fix this, which is not trivial especially in light of mods adding science instruments. Otherwise you'd get contracts that are impossible to do. I am of course in favour of fixing it!

[WanderingKid]

wasn't this supposed to be fixed in 0.90? I remember reading it in the changelog... perhaps I'm mistaken.

I don't see anything about it in the list for the 0.90.0 list on the wiki:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/0.90.0

[Anquietas314]

I don't see anything about it in the list for the 0.90.0 list on the wiki:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/0.90.0

It's probably still too early to trust the wiki to be complete. That page seems to just be a copy-paste of the readme file shipped with the game, which obviously doesn't cover all of the changes. I'll try to find where I read the thing about flags though.

EDIT: found it!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88445-0-90-0-Fine-Print-vSTOCK-D-BETA-RELEASE%21%21%21-%28December-15%29?p=1604663&viewfull=1#post1604663

Edited December 20, 2014 by armagheddonsgw

[Empiro]

Flag planting came be (mostly) fixed if it were only ever offered once per biome per game. You can still "biome hop" but it's not as easy.

Satellite contracts could be fixed (and would actually be pretty cool) if the game required you to take up a randomly generated sub-assembly that you had to attach in the VAB/SPH. Sometimes the assembly could be heavy, or it could have an off-center CoM that you have to deal with, and so on. It would make sense -- satellites in real life have very specific uses, and generally have custom parts.

[ddenis]

Return science from orbit/landed:

Abuse: Does not require new science.

Can be fixed by rewarding with 100-200-500% of science received from the experiment that fulfilled contract.

[Anquietas314]

Satellite contracts could be fixed (and would actually be pretty cool) if the game required you to take up a randomly generated sub-assembly that you had to attach in the VAB/SPH. Sometimes the assembly could be heavy, or it could have an off-center CoM that you have to deal with, and so on. It would make sense -- satellites in real life have very specific uses, and generally have custom parts.

Seems like it could be cool in theory, but I can imagine several cases where that would have undesirable consequences. Yes satellites in real life often have custom parts, but they're also usually there to accomplish some specific scientific goal or to accommodate some specific communications network or similar. KSP mostly covers both of those already. Also real life satellites are almost always light, for the simple reason it makes them a few hundred million dollars cheaper if they're half the weight

- - - Updated - - -

Can be fixed by rewarding with 100-200-500% of science received from the experiment that fulfilled contract.

That doesn't fix all of it though - remember those contracts reward a decent amount of funds too.

[WanderingKid]

EDIT: found it!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88445-0-90-0-Fine-Print-vSTOCK-D-BETA-RELEASE%21%21%21-%28December-15%29?p=1604663&viewfull=1#post1604663

Edited original post, thanks for that.

[Anquietas314]

Edited original post, thanks for that.

I can't say for sure if the "fix" actually works though. I've had 2 "plant a flag on the Mun" contracts already.

[WanderingKid]

Can be fixed by rewarding with 100-200-500% of science received from the experiment that fulfilled contract.

That could work. A percentage of the fee/sci/prestige results is based upon the percentage of the science of the experiment. Only problem is spamming them for the advance would still be viable. A 0% return on the result and a 7k advance is enough for me to collect up two or three, swap to a satellite, and just get them out of my queue.

Not having an advance could mean a lack of funds to put up the satellite to fulfill the mission.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't say for sure if the "fix" actually works though. I've had 2 "plant a flag on the Mun" contracts already.

With a Kerbal on the Mun still? Or did you have to deorbit again?

[Empiro]

Seems like it could be cool in theory, but I can imagine several cases where that would have undesirable consequences. Yes satellites in real life often have custom parts, but they're also usually there to accomplish some specific scientific goal or to accommodate some specific communications network or similar. KSP mostly covers both of those already. Also real life satellites are almost always light, for the simple reason it makes them a few hundred million dollars cheaper if they're half the weight

True, but I think that for this would be a fine trade-off to make for the sake of gameplay and challenge. It would give more variety to the contract than just having different orbits, which you usually can use the exact same rocket to accomplish.

[Anquietas314]

True, but I think that for this would be a fine trade-off to make for the sake of gameplay and challenge. It would give more variety to the contract than just having different orbits, which you usually can use the exact same rocket to accomplish.

True I guess, but really the problem I find is that it's "launch a plain satellite with no instruments" 90% of the time, even though I have the materials bay, goo canister and thermometer available (for orbit). The couple materials bay ones I did get did force me to redesign my rocket specifically for them though

[WanderingKid]

I believe I've confirmed that simply putting a new satellite on the pad is enough to satisfy the 'launch a new satellite' request for the contract and you can re-use old ones. Problem with actually confirming it works is really stupid placement of OX-STAT panels and a now permanent shadow...

[Bill Phil]

Eh... Multiple satellite requests isn't really abusive. Some orbits are just so very different that it's practically impossible without nukes.

[Anquietas314]

Eh... Multiple satellite requests isn't really abusive. Some orbits are just so very different that it's practically impossible without nukes.

I've yet to get a satellite contract that expects me to put a satellite in a low orbit... otherwise, the 1km/s delta-v I frequently have left over on my satellites would be more than enough to radically alter the orbit (I can't shave it off without increasing the cost of the rocket)

[WanderingKid]

Eh... Multiple satellite requests isn't really abusive. Some orbits are just so very different that it's practically impossible without nukes.

?? A FL-T100 + 48-7S + OKTO + Comm + Thermometer will satisfy a number of different requests, particularly around low g bodies like Mun and Minmus. It's got roughly 2,500-3000 m/s dV. For High-alt satellite requests, such as the ones between Mun/Minmus around Kerbal, it's only ~100 dV to transfer your orbit once you're roughly stable out there.

[Anquietas314]

With a Kerbal on the Mun still? Or did you have to deorbit again?

Ah, yes I forgot about that detail. lol

Edited December 21, 2014 by armagheddonsgw

[Bill Phil]

?? A FL-T100 + 48-7S + OKTO + Comm + Thermometer will satisfy a number of different requests, particularly around low g bodies like Mun and Minmus. It's got roughly 2,500-3000 m/s dV. For High-alt satellite requests, such as the ones between Mun/Minmus around Kerbal, it's only ~100 dV to transfer your orbit once you're roughly stable out there.

Yeah, for Mun and Minmus. I've yet to do one of those yet. Plus, I generally put satellites in orbit that can't propel themselves. Generally because I think of a satellite as something that only has limited maneuvering ability, so when theg say satellite I think that I should stage it just to be formal.

Plus, Squad could add a satellite contract limiter or something, I don't know. I'm just speaking from my experiences.

[SkyRender]

Before SQUAD goes nerfing the spammable contracts, they really should do something to remove the need to spam them in the first place. Just sayin'.

[Anquietas314]

Before SQUAD goes nerfing the spammable contracts, they really should do something to remove the need to spam them in the first place. Just sayin'.

There isn't really any such need; even on hard difficulty an experienced player can manage just fine without cheating the system, without really needing to grind too much either. Obviously if you never leave kerbin's SOI it takes a fair bit more effort to get the science needed to complete the tech tree, and pretty quickly kerbin/mun/minmus contracts pay peanuts, but it's certainly possible to make enough money and science and still have fun If you're talking about the buildings being too expensive, they are to some extent but that imho actually contributes to the game; if you can't build your usual rocket for going to the Mun because your launchpad/VAB isn't big enough, you have an opportunity to figure out a better way to do it

Edited December 21, 2014 by armagheddonsgw

[SofusRud]

Here's a thought regarding the satellites that don't have to remain there problem: make it a mission parameter that they can't have any propulsion, besides besides maybe RCS.

[Anquietas314]

Here's a thought regarding the satellites that don't have to remain there problem: make it a mission parameter that they can't have any propulsion, besides besides maybe RCS.

How do you propose we get the satellite there in the first place then? My satellites use the tiny Rockomax engine and the smallest 1.25 meter fuel tank (seems to be the most cost-effective solution) ... and generally don't have RCS on them at all.

Plus RCS can be used to provide a lot of deltaV...

[Tex_NL]

How do you propose we get the satellite there in the first place then? My satellites use the tiny Rockomax engine and the smallest 1.25 meter fuel tank (seems to be the most cost-effective solution) ... and generally don't have RCS on them at all.

...

Simple: decouple the satellite from the booster.

This is actually the most elegant solution I've seen for this problem so far. When all fuel is expended (or decoupled) the stability counter starts. And as soon as all other criteria are met the satellite can be removed from player control and you get paid.

No more exploiting of the satellite contracts and no risk of stranding your delivery vehicle in orbit.

[Anquietas314]

Simple: decouple the satellite from the booster.

This is actually the most elegant solution I've seen for this problem so far. When all fuel is expended (or decoupled) the stability counter starts. And as soon as all other criteria are met the satellite can be removed from player control and you get paid.

No more exploiting of the satellite contracts and no risk of stranding your delivery vehicle in orbit.

Decouplers add mass and cost to the satellite, plus then you've got uncontrollable debris in the orbit of the satellite.

[Tex_NL]

Decouplers add mass and cost to the satellite, plus then you've got uncontrollable debris in the orbit of the satellite.

Yes, a decoupler adds a tiny bit of extra mass. And if you're willing to spend a tiny bit more you can add a second probe core on the booster and deorbit it.