Campaign: forum controlled KSP campaign: Space race to the Mun!!

[Zutha]

7.5k for 75km, 7.9k for 35km, 8k for 16.5km?

That\'s just crazy as I could of hit 35k on a smaller design that cost less and be at a profit... i could 16.5k on a tiny budget if i knew this before hand.

There is no logically reason for the pricing to be backwards so i will not participate further unless mission prices are stated prior to missions being achieved.

Punishing people for doing well...

[Crowzone]

I have an idea for mission rewards that might appease everyone.

Each mission has a base value that progressively gets higher as the missions are more difficult (though I suppose some missions could have identical values if they\'re considered to be of equivalent difficulties)

From those base rewards, there are multipliers that improve OR reduce the payout, including being the first to achieve it, what level of tech was needed (efficiency), repeat mission penalty, and then of course the failures and/or mistakes.

So a reward scale might look like this:

Max Altitude 10000m Base: 5000 Expected Tech: 0

Max Altitude 16500m Base: 6500 Expected Tech: 0

Max Altitude 35000m Base: 8000 Expected Tech: 2

Max Altitude 70000m Base: 10000 Expected Tech: 2

* Being the first to achieve a mission pays a bonus of 25%

* Repeating the mission progressively reduces payout by 15%

* Completing the mission at lower then expected tech level increases payout by 10% per level (efficiency)

* Completing the mission using higher then expected tech level reduces payout by 10% per level (overkill)

Rewarding the use of lower tech to accomplish missions should naturally be balanced by increased costs associated with using more less advanced parts, but allows for clever designs and piloting skills to be more efficient, for example, if most players are using tech 2 to reach 35000m at an average craft cost of 5k + 3k for tech upgrades, but someone manages to reach the same altitude at tech 0 with a 6k craft, there should be a reward. However, the danger then lies in that they may end up spending 9k doing it at tech 0 which in the end is more costly then just upgrading their tech level. It should balance out providing the expected tech levels are properly set up. Additionally, using high tech to accomplish simple missions is trivial and should be penalized. Further to this, the tech level used should be calculated by the craft file, not what the player has purchased, so for example a player could buy up to tech 5, but then only use tech 4 or lower parts on a mission and thus they would be scored based on tech 4.

This way being efficient with money (cost of your craft + r&d) is balanced with the challenge of the mission. And everyone can be fairly confident in what mission they are choosing to accomplish.

[Awaras]

Turn 3 submitted.

[sjwt]

* Being the first to achieve a mission pays a bonus of 25%

* Repeating the mission progressively reduces payout by 15%

* Completing the mission at lower then expected tech level increases payout by 10% per level (efficiency)

* Completing the mission using higher then expected tech level reduces payout by 10% per level (overkill)

Throw in

*First and only one to complete the mission on that turn

* Completing two or more Missions that have not been done before on the same turn

[Jamini]

Turn Report

Initial Funds: $9,241

Tech: $4,000

Craft Cost: $4,672

Banked Funds: $569

Mission: Travel 350km horizontally, east, from KSP

Distance Achieved: 436,894m

Flight Log

G\'day to all of you!

[Zutha]

Turn Report

Initial Funds: $9,241

Tech: $4,000

Craft Cost: $4,672

Banked Funds: $569

Mission: Travel 350km horizontally, east, from KSP

Distance Achieved: 436,894m

G\'day to all of you!

Flight Log

Grats mate, helps doing 35km in previous mission rather than 70km as you gain more money, ship costs less and can now progress further this round, good strategy.

/Edit

I may be coming across as pissed off (well I am), but you\'ve now completely unbalanced the \'race\' by giving more to the people who achieve less. Whats the point in participating if every time you achieve more than someone else you\'re going to handicap the players for being smarter, better than others?

Remove the word Race from the header as it\'s looking more like a fix.

Totally feels cheated.....

[Jamini]

Grats mate, helps doing 35km in previous mission rather than 70km as you gain more money, ship costs less and can now progress further this round, good strategy.

/Edit

I may be coming across as pissed off (well I am), but you\'ve now completely unbalanced the \'race\' by giving more to the people who achieve less. Whats the point in participating if every time you achieve more than someone else you\'re going to handicap the players for being smarter, better than others?

Remove the word Race from the header as it\'s looking more like a fix.

Totally feels cheated.....

I think you missed the post where I also protested the diminishing rewards for harder missions. If anything, both the 35km and the 70km people BOTH were shafted, as they made less than the 16.5km people even after the replay reduction.

Either way, right now I\'m playing around with orbiting rockets for next turn. Assuming the (fairly tricky) 350km mission actually has rewards worth mentioning I should be able to get into orbit next turn.

...

Also, I am curious what the plan is for partial crew survival. I know a TPK results in a 33% reduction, but what about losing only one or two Kerbals? This matters, especially for orbital missions.

[Zutha]

Sorry Jamini, the post wasn\'t directed at you

I quoted you specifically as you gained the most out of everyone.

The reason I say this is you were the only tech 2 who went for 35k, where the poeple who did 16.5k weren\'t tech 2.

[Jamini]

Sorry Jamini, the post wasn\'t directed at you

I quoted you specifically as you gained the most out of everyone.

The reason I say this is you were the only tech 2 who went for 35k, where the people who did 16.5k weren\'t tech 2.

I also banked a LOT of cash by doing so. The 70km payout would have needed to be $1,550 over the 35km payout in order to compensate for the money I saved by going for the smaller, cost-effective rocket.

That being said, I am curious what designs you and Alchemist used. (Did you guys use multiple small LFEs?)

************

Here is the list of current participants (sorted by tech level and banked cash.)

Player - Bank

Tech Level 2

Jamini - 9241

Sjwt - 8033

Zutha - 8011

DonLorenzo - 8011

STcatto - 7961

pit_muc - 7961

Alchemist - 7561

Tech Level 0

UmbralRaptor - 9561

Awaras - 8978

Rage - 8966

Nomad - 8916

CrowZone - 8466

RulerofNothing - 7998

AdmiralStewart - 6321

Honestly, I feel increasing the 35km reward by $500 and the 70km reward by $2,000 may be the way to go. That way things will remain competitive for all players without going overboard and giving the leading players a snowball effect.

[Zutha]

I think i used 3xLEs, mini rocket, big fuel tank.

[sjwt]

Jamini,I do agree that the payouts seem odd, please see below for a chart on them, but I think we have a big issue with Tech 2, and it coming in so early in the game.

Also a Modified view, on the Bank, it looks very different if you add back the money spent on tech, we have those on tech two with balances of between $12241 and $10561, compared to tech 0 with $9561 to $6321.

So the average figures for round 1 and 2 are..

Round 1

Average Average % Number

Cost Pay Return Claimed

10k 4500 6987 55.267% 2

16.5k 4722 8987 90.322% 11

Round 2

Average Average % Number

Cost Pay Return Claimed

10k 4272 5493 28.581% 1

16.5k 4497 8088 79.853% 2

35k 6435 7926 23.170% 4

70K 5805 7546 29.991% 7

I think this shows two things, the return isn\'t fully linked to the investment, under the current set up, if you are lucky enough to be doing a mission with high tech the same time someone else with low tech is pushing the boundaries, you will be rewarded highly for putting in less effort.

Also, it shows the reward for 16.5K is too high, I think the gap between 10k and 16.5 should be closed and also targets/rewards might need to be moved, combine 30/70 into 50, and add 200/400?

10K $5500

16.5k $6500

50k $7500

200k $8500

With less profit per mission, I would consider the tech levels, it would mean no one gets two techs for the second round.

$1,000,$3,000,$5000,$9000,$15000,$17,000

Now lest plug these figures into the first two rounds, and see what we get with a 5% reduction on the pay out per round, sounds fair?

Round 1

Average Average % Number

Cost Pay Return Claimed

10k 4500 5500 22.222% 2

16.5k 4722 6500 37.654% 11

Round 2

Average Average % Number

Cost Pay Return Claimed

10k 4272 5225 23.308% 1

16.5k 4497 6175 37.314 13

Leading to the max/minimum bank values at the end of the rounds of, much closer game than the almost double we have at the moment.

R1 $6878/$6100

R2 $8556/$7053

[Alchemist]

That\'s what I meant, when asked about at least approximate prices - that my craft was able to reach 70 km altitude and land 450 km away. (or reach more than 200 km if launched straight up). For just 70 km it could have even 1 SRB less (and still go much above 100 km). I just was hoping than intercontinentaly flight would really make more than just 70 km straight up, not end up as the most expensive expensive craft in 70km category. Now I even can\'t purchase the next tech level (hopefully a polar orbit will cost something, not even less than this).

[sjwt]

That\'s what I meant, when asked about at least approximate prices - that my craft was able to reach 70 km altitude and land 450 km away. (or reach more than 200 km if launched straight up). For just 70 km it could have even 1 SRB less (and still go much above 100 km). I just was hoping than intercontinentaly flight would really make more than just 70 km straight up, not end up as the most expensive expensive craft in 70km category. Now I even can\'t purchase the next tech level (hopefully a polar orbit will cost something, not even less than this).

I see your problem, you should of taken my lead, cheapest craft in the 70K and did 419K intercontinental flight with fuel to spare.

I was wondering who else might of done two missions, what will be interesting is the concept that if we had of been payed out for the 350k, it would mean that those doing it on Level 3 tech this round would be getting higher payouts.. Its a rather complex way to handle things.

Though I still think their should be a $500 bonus or something for doing each additional virgin mission in a round, on top of taking which ever would be the higher payout.

[Alchemist]

If not that extra booster for double mission, my craft would be approximately for the same cost as all the other 70km. And if not to take the chute...

[Crowzone]

CrowSpace industries presents the ever so economical Tech 0 35k Altitude Rocket:

Turn Report (Turn 3)

I will purchase no new tech this round – remaining at Tech Level 0

Available Balance: 8466

Craft Cost: 5622

Remaining Funds: 2844

Mission: Fly to an altitude of at least 35000m

Altitude achieved: 38497m

This craft took some tricky flying skills and excellent timing on the staging to achieve it’s max altitude for such a small cost (when factoring no money spent on tech upgrades)

********

Being behind a turn is frustrating but I\'m still having fun - Plus, there\'s some good accomplishment in doing this mission for so cheap. Craft File and screenshots/logs sent by email.

[Jamini]

Quite frankly, I\'m really not bugged by the rate of tech. Small LE\'s, while powerful, are still a pretty big investment. The main catching point was that rewards just were not enough to make T0 crafts overly profitable.

Also, why don\'t we just combined tech levels 1 and 2? Honestly, there isn\'t a lot of benefit for tech level 1 without the Lander Engine.

[sjwt]

I would like to say I wish you a very happy birthday togfox,

and that also despite the teething issues we have, I am enjoying this new aspect of KSP immensely, I am building different ships, and improving my flying every time.

If you had of told me three weeks ago that I would be put in work and effort into a transcontinental ship in KSP, I would of looked at you funny.

In short, you rock.

[togfox]

So I was trying to NOT to be on the forum on my birthday but stuff happens.

I\'ll explain the model I\'m using for the reward system. It\'s not perfect and I said in the OP there will be balance issue\'s as we go. I didn\'t say the MAY be issue\'s, I said there WILL be issue\'s. For those that appreciate this, have sucked it up and continue with turn 3, thanks for soldiering on. That said, if nothing was learned from v1 then it would be a shame. Here is my approach:

To determine rewards I play tested the first two missions with 13 different craft designs. 13. I used many combinations of SRB\'s, decouplers, pods, landing on water, explosive decoupling, creative staging - you name it. 13 craft. From those 13 craft I determined what missions could be achieved and for each mission I determined the average cost for those two missions. By using the average, half the players would be over that cost and half would be under that cost. I then added roughly 30% to that average cost and that became the 'first in' prize money. Example:

Player 1 mission cost = $90

Player 2 mission cost = $110

Average mission cost = $100

Prize money = $130

You can see that Player one gets more margin - and rightly so - but BOTH players make a profit - as it should be. Missions that make a loss is not sustainable. Two work out \'diminishing returns\', I worked out 2nd place is something like a 22% margin, then 16%, then 9%, then 5% etc etc. I made those numbers up - those aren\'t the real numbers. My point is that it diminishes in a curve. The difference between 1st and 2nd is much larger than the difference between 4th and 5th. For the mathematical, the formula:

Prize money = average cost of craft*1.3*x^-0.9

Fancy huh. You don\'t need to understand it. I do and you need to understand I\'ve put in a lot of thought into this.

Now - how did this anomoly happen? It\'s statistics but I\'ll explain it. If I\'ve already lost you then I don\'t blame you - either keep playing for fun or go read some other thread. If you\'re still interested, here we go:

Those that did the 70,000m mission - and you\'ll see there were a few, came in at an average cost of $5805 with a reward of $7546.

Those that did the 35,000m mission came in at an average cost of $6097 and, because the average is higher, the reward is $7926.

Is that fair? It\'s certainly not intuitive but what has happened is those that did the 70,000m mission have done so on very well designed craft. They used SRB\'s and explosive decoupling with careful staging and terminal velocity taken into account. Those that did the 35,000m mission, and I mean no disrespect - did so with fat, ugly craft that had too much fuel, they used expensive decouplers and had poor staging. Their craft were really ungraceful. And this is OKAY! This is fun and learning so I mean nothing by that statement!

The fact is, the skilled players can actually go higher for less. This has the unexpected side effect that you\'re seeing now. As unintuitive as it appears, it is a symptom of me not benchmarking these missions beforehand. We didn\'t have this problem in turn 1 because I already play tested turn 1. In turn 2, YOU became the play tester and the model is flawed, or, more correctly, the skilled players departed from the less skilled players in mission choice and my averages have become skewed.

Now that I\'ve explained all that, and confused everyone, we need to decide what to do about it. Here are some options:

- continue the campaign on the understanding that as we accomplish missions, you ARE the play testers and with any play test, unexpected things WILL happen.

- abandon the campaign as a bad idea

- pause the campaign until we have some mechanics

- abandon the campaign, play test some missions with rigorous testing and have full and open reward system on the record for v2.

The campaign is officially on pause until I\'m certain there is support. Those that have submitted craft files can retract them if they wish, depending on the outcome.

Let me know how this should continue. Thanks for the birthday wishes. 8)

[Crowzone]

- continue the campaign on the understanding that as we accomplish missions, you ARE the play testers and with any play test, unexpected things WILL happen.

This would be my choice - I am having more fun playing KSP with this campaign and would be sad to stop it. I understand that there will be issues and I can deal with them to be honest. That said I am also not objecting to any tweaking of the rules mid-game if and when something unforseen comes up.

[sjwt]

So I was trying to NOT to be on the forum on my birthday but stuff happens.

Silly fox, the internet\'s not for Birthdays!

I vote we carry on, suck it up and make more and more crazy changes(we are Beta testers, each round should come with scary rule changes!) as things go on, its the Kerbal thing to do!

[DonLorenzo]

I figured you were doing something like this. It\'s a good idea, in principle. Where it falls down is that you use the ACTUAL COST of the submitted craft as the basis. This will probably work out in a large population, but with less than 10 submissions per mission you\'re bound to get these kind of effects.

What I\'d suggest to improve this mechanic is a little bit more legwork, and a little less pure math. What I mean is do a bunch of tests yourself to figure out a ballpark \'base price\' for each mission. Don\'t try to be too precise as that will do your head in as the missions get more complex. Ballpark it. Then look at how those figures for the concurrently available missions compare and make sure there is a logical slope there. If one of the figures need a lot of adjusting, consider that maybe the mission parameters are wrong, some part costs are off or maybe your playtesting wasn\'t very optimal in one of the missions. Tweak one of these three parameters per mission untill there\'s a seemingly good slope of difficulty, reward and scale.

The next bit is important, the base figure has to be shared with the contestants. Designing with a clear maximum budget is much clearer and it makes the decision on which mission to fly, based on your designing prowess and part availability, possible. Which I dare say is one of the good bits of such a forum run campaign.

Then you give it to us, the players, and some of us will prove you dead wrong on some assumptions and we\'ll have laughs and beers over it and the next time that mission comes around it\'ll be tweaked just that much better.

To recap; I think it\'s smart, even necessary to determine the base payout in advance. After a couple of playthroughs and a couple dozen more spacecraft designs a purely mathematical approach (while removing outliers!!) may work, for now it won\'t.

As to the campaign at large, by all means I\'m for continuing. Absolutely. I don\'t mind stuff like this in the slightest (in fact it\'s one of the points of it, as you said) and I don\'t think other people do either. I don\'t fully agree with you on all balance decisions, but that\'s hardly a requirement. If you do decide to throw in the towel I will pick it up and have a go at running a campaign of my own.

Cheers and happy birthday!

[Awaras]

I don\'t mind the errors, who cares if it is not balanced yet, keep working on it and it will get better.

Yes, there are inconsistencies, both with the reward system and the default prices (I mean, a radial decoupler costing almost as much as a command pod is not very logical in my book, but those are prices displayed in game so I guess we\'ll make do) but this is not something that can\'t be dealt with.

That said, this campaign has been a breath of fresh air and also a taste of what KSP will be like once the campaign and research is implemented and we will have to watch our budgets.

I hope you continue with the campaign.

[Alchemist]

The failure of this reward determing approach is that with a limited budget you will get only ultra cheap designs first and twice more expensive monsters will appear couple turns later.

[Zutha]

Your logic is flawed.

You calculated that the average cost of the craft was 5805 for the 70km.

But it wasn\'t, it was 8805 as everyone who did it had to unlock tech 2 to actually do it.

Then you said that the average cost for the craft was 6097 for the 35km.

Which it wasn\'t as the people participating in doing 35km did it with varying tech levels.

To build a craft to do 70km for 5805 on average REQUIRED tech 2. To get 35k on 6097 did NOT REQUIRE tech 2. Therefore people who did it with tech 2 components while others with tech 0 and tech 1 could make a much cheaper craft, but the average of the players bumps up the reward.

I understand your trail of thought, but you missed this key bit of information.

I\'m not complaining about the campaign in general, I think it\'s a great idea and should continue. But you must of looked at the numbers and thought, 'jeeez, this looks a bit wrong'.

[UmbralRaptor]

Sort of. I did the 70 km mission with TL0 (9 SRBs, blowing up lower ones for decoupling for $6972). R&D costs are one-time, so we\'ll have to see how many missions at how much lower TL will be required for higher TLs to pay for themselves. It\'s likely that several people will pull ahead of me next turn, as they can do cheap orbital missions with TL3 rockets, while I\'ll have to use a ~$1400 more expensive TL2 rocket, or go for a long distance suborbital mission.

I suspect that part of the annoyance is also that we\'re doing 1-dimensional missions. If someone had gone for horizontal distance, a higher payout for a 'lesser' mission would have been more intuitive.