Increasing Contract DIFFICULTY Rather Than Just Lowering Payouts ( = Grindy)

[Srpadget]

The influx of new contract types in 0.90 provides a mechanism to change the actual level of difficulty rather than merely reducing payoffs while increasing costs (which makes the game as a whole more grindy, without actually making any of the contracts/missions any more difficult).

Many of the new contract types (deliver satellite to specified orbit and site surveys jump immediately to mind) require reaching a specified destination to within some tolerance (not quantitatively specified in the contract, but still there). It occurs to me that varying the acceptable tolerance is an EXCELLENT way to adjust the challenge level of contracts. For example (for illustrative purposes only -- I have no idea what the current tolerances are, nor what a good balance might be):

Orbital tolerance of 5% Pe/Ap, inclination + or - 1 degree for Easy difficulty, 3% / 0.5 degree for Medium, 1% / 0.1 degree for Hard

Site surveys must be within 2km of specified location for Easy, 1km Medium, 0.5km Hard

Certainly I have seen a great deal of disagreement here on the forums about whether the tolerance "windows" are too big, too small, etc. It seems to me that the above suggestion could help deal with both the above issue (some players want looser, tolerances, some want tighter) AND the (not unfounded) userbase complaints that Hard is grindier, but not more difficult, than Moderate or Easy.

Me, I'm fine with the atmospheric flight survey size on Kerbin; they're difficult to hit on large airless bodies such as Mun, but WAY too easy on small bodies like Minmus (which I can hit pretty routinely while still in orbit). OTOH, I pretty much refuse to take any more site surveys that involve landing on Kerbin--I'm not THAT good at pinpoint landings (especially on the seemingly inevitable "one patch of rough terrain which cannot be seen in Map View when accepting the contract but is Ground Zero for survey completion") in the few seconds between "you've arrived" and "whoops, you're leaving". On the third hand, orbital parameters are laughably loose, and I find myself getting annoyed with the game for announcing contract completion (and erasing the target orbit from Map View!) when I can EYEBALL that I most certainly have NOT achieved the desired orbit yet. So apparently I'm a good candidate for a Custom difficulty with Easy ground sites, Moderate "in flight" tolerances, and Hard orbital parameters....

[Kegereneku]

I've got to agree with that for the reason stated first.

Increasing grindyness do not change gameplay difficulty.

Btw, message to SQUAD, I would loooove you guy if you didn't generated mission too randomly.

I guess it make a lot easier to create content but if you could at least change the filter to keep out absurd result (especially on Part Test) it would make the game a lot more immersive.

[Anquietas314]

It occurs to me that varying the acceptable tolerance is an EXCELLENT way to adjust the challenge level of contracts. For example (for illustrative purposes only -- I have no idea what the current tolerances are, nor what a good balance might be):

Orbital tolerance of 5% Pe/Ap, inclination + or - 1 degree for Easy difficulty, 3% / 0.5 degree for Medium, 1% / 0.1 degree for Hard

Site surveys must be within 2km of specified location for Easy, 1km Medium, 0.5km Hard

My only concern with this is that it would become incredibly frustrating to meet the requirements for some of the trickier orbits (in particular, Kolniya orbits and similarly elliptical ones where burning at apoapsis is very sensitive to small errors). Also, the survey ones already cause people enough grief with trying to hit the marks precisely (see the fairly high number of "how can I reach these" questions in the gameplay questions forum).

Me, I'm fine with the atmospheric flight survey size on Kerbin; they're difficult to hit on large airless bodies such as Mun, but WAY too easy on small bodies like Minmus (which I can hit pretty routinely while still in orbit).

A simple fix for the issue with Minmus (and other small bodies) is have the size of the target zone be based on the size of the planet/moon. It might be worth making the ones on airless bodies a little easier overall though since changing your orbital plane around Mun can be quite expensive in terms of deltaV

On the third hand, orbital parameters are laughably loose, and I find myself getting annoyed with the game for announcing contract completion (and erasing the target orbit from Map View!) when I can EYEBALL that I most certainly have NOT achieved the desired orbit yet.

Yeah I agree that's a bit of an annoying issue, but it only seems to happen for nearly-circular orbits or towards apoapsis on the elliptical ones; periapsis on said orbits can be very picky. I think realistically a better solution than the difficulty settings would be to have both percentage-based and fixed bounds on the orbit, and have the game use whichever is more appropriate for that particular factor of the orbit.

I do agree with the main point of the OP that contracts should be harder, not more grindy on harder difficulties, but I think it would be difficult to do that in practice without just making things stupidly specific and so on.

[Srpadget]

My only concern with this is that it would become incredibly frustrating to meet the requirements for some of the trickier orbits (in particular, Kolniya orbits and similarly elliptical ones where burning at apoapsis is very sensitive to small errors).

It's true that properly balancing "appropriate" tolerances will be tricky. Especially if the UI for selecting tolerance-difficulty is to be distilled down to a single slider. (Though I've never had much trouble with nailing Kolniya/tundra orbits myself. Mind you, this could be due to the aforementioned too-high tolerances baked into the current contracts....)

Also, the survey ones already cause people enough grief with trying to hit the marks precisely (see the fairly high number of "how can I reach these" questions in the gameplay questions forum).

I have this problem myself. I can DO it on Kerbin by landing an aircraft "nearby" and then carefully crawling around a low speed, using my airplane as a jet-powered All Terrain Vehicle...but I don't like it, and I don't think that's how these contracts were "intended" to be fulfilled. And on relatively high-gee worlds without oxy atmospheres? I'm thinking of starting a twelve-step program with the slogan "Just Say No To Mun".

A simple fix for the issue with Minmus (and other small bodies) is have the size of the target zone be based on the size of the planet/moon. It might be worth making the ones on airless bodies a little easier overall though since changing your orbital plane around Mun can be quite expensive in terms of deltaV

Totally agree. Maybe the target zone should be a specified angle around the nominal target point, rather than a specified distance? With a larger angle for airless bodies? (Again, balancing these properly will be tricky. But that's going to be true regardless of whether the tolerances vary with difficulty setting.)

[Bill Phil]

Hmm...

Perhaps more than one orbit... In the orbital missions. A constellation of satellites all in specific orbits near to each other. It increases payload and deltav requirements.

[Anquietas314]

It increases payload and deltav requirements.

Not really. The actual satellites have next to no mass unless they have goo canisters or materials bays; it's the fuel and engine to get them into place that matters. You can launch several of them using one tank/engine pair if you know what you're doing. It does make things harder and more interesting though

[thereaverofdarkness]

Once you know how to put an orbit within tolerances, it ceases to be difficult. I could put one probably within 0.0001% inclination pretty easily, with my probe's apoapsis and periapsis both right on top of the markers (to the pixel when zoomed in), and with the apoapsis and periapsis within about 0.1 meters. I could get the Ap/Pe altitude even closer but it doesn't display units of less than a meter.

[Bill Phil]

Not really. The actual satellites have next to no mass unless they have goo canisters or materials bays; it's the fuel and engine to get them into place that matters. You can launch several of them using one tank/engine pair if you know what you're doing. It does make things harder and more interesting though

It's all one launch. A cluster of satellites. And since the orbits are different, there's more Dv requirements.

[KrazyKrl]

I would like to see a reasonable Delta-V limitation on contracts. It would require something to denote which contract you are going to claim with the current launch though, and I'm not sure how multi-launch vehicles would be rectified.

[Anquietas314]

It's all one launch. A cluster of satellites. And since the orbits are different, there's more Dv requirements.

I realise it's one launch. My point is, you can strap one tank/engine combo to the entire cluster of satellites, with each individual satellite having no engine at all and being decoupled in sequence. You can then use the engine to move the rest into the next position, release, repeat. That'll significantly decrease the launch costs.

[Bill Phil]

I realise it's one launch. My point is, you can strap one tank/engine combo to the entire cluster of satellites, with each individual satellite having no engine at all and being decoupled in sequence. You can then use the engine to move the rest into the next position, release, repeat. That'll significantly decrease the launch costs.

Yes. But it is harder. And the Dv requirements are increased dependent on the orbits. And make it have to be done in a very strict time line.