Career mode - post your imbalanced payouts!

[CorBlimey]

Some contracts barely cover their cost and some fun contracts (like land on Mun, set up Mun base etc) pay ok.

Other contracts pay out far more than they should be worth like this that surprised me so much I bothered to come here and post!

The contract below (on Normal difficulty) gives me 650k funds, 2.5k science, 233 reputation (I have some funds and reptuation partially converted to science but still!) for a piddling engine test in LKO. I have all tech unlocked up to the 300 science nodes but this contract would allow me to unlock virtually a whole next tier once I upgrade the science lab.

I am ok with having high funds payouts (lower than the above though) as high funds allows fun contraptions to be hoisted in to space but the high science rewards really kill the main 'point' of missions to get science. It hardly seems worth bothering with a tub of goo for 50 science compared to 2.5k for next to nothing.

The problem appears to me to be the conversion rate of reputation and funds to science in the Administration Building. I think the ratio should be 10 times poorer.

I am tempted to start a new game on Science Mode instead as the contracts have virtually broken my current game (my first game so I didn't realise that I was ruining the tech tree fun by accepting such a contract).

Edited January 1, 2015 by CorBlimey

[Rithsom]

I got a contract to test the LFB on a sub-orbital trajectory not too long ago. Its reward was something like 400,000 Funds.

The Kerbodyne test contracts pay way too much...

[CorBlimey]

I got a contract to test the LFB on a sub-orbital trajectory not too long ago. Its reward was something like 400,000 Funds.

The Kerbodyne test contracts pay way too much...

Indeed.

I think test contracts should be a fallback only in case you run out of funds on missions.

But, as a result, I think missions (like to Mun etc) need to pay out more. Tier 3 science upgrade costs 3.5M funds so there does need to be a way of making some profitss.

[Xavven]

What difficulty level were you on? Should probably post that. Otherwise, it's like "wow! Look at how unbalanced this starting contract to orbit Kerbin is!"

[CorBlimey]

What difficulty level were you on? Should probably post that. Otherwise, it's like "wow! Look at how unbalanced this starting contract to orbit Kerbin is!"

http://i.imgur.com/hFHASNV.png

Now put an Unpaid Research Programme and Outsourced Contracts on. Watch that science jump to 1k+ (or the whole early tech tree).

[KrazyKrl]

I think that the KR-2L contract is a little excessive in rewards. (iirc, this is normal difficulty.)

I would love to see the contracts system have a few more requirements tied to it. Something along with the orbital requirements, "Max Craft Mass" and "Max Delta-V", and maybe even "Max Part Count"

[Kerano]

Positioning a satellite in a low orbit around the Sun is extremely difficult but pays out as if it's relatively trivial. (This is on Normal difficulty.)

Barely $250,000 funds for a mission which required 10,000 m/s of delta-v just to bring the apoapsis down after sundiving and plane changing from Jool. Probably close to 20,000 m/s of delta-v required from the launchpad on Kerbin, and multiple hours to achieve despite using 4x physical timewarp during most burns. Given the difficulty and required time investment, a more appropriate payout would be around 10x the amount given - at least $2,500,000 funds on Normal.

Satellite missions in low orbits around Jool also pay out too low, and should reward at least $1,000,000 funds on Normal.

[Greep]

Eh, is the KR-2L really that unbalanced? Like I can get explore bop/jool/ and pol with a tiny satellite and get about a million credits on hard. Same with an eve and gilly or a duna and ike done together.

I guess it's only imbalanced when considering effort instead of cost, in which case yeah, shoving something on a mainsail and going straight up for a half mill is pretty easy :/

Edit: As for science, that's more to do with the whole admin building problem than contracts.

Edit: As for the satellites to the sun... keep in mind how these payouts are being calculated for satellites. It's probably, although I'm not certain since I haven't done modding yet, something like

Base contract * addon multipliers for satellite (lab/detector etc) * Sphere of influence (e.g. kerbol) + (orbit / max orbit) * small multiplier

So I don't see a way of actually fixing that for the sun, because if you multiply Kerbol's SoI multiplier by a ton well... then you'll have people complaining about how much credits you get for a satellite orbit that just overreaches kerbin's SoI. And you can't add exceptions, since there's so many contract types.

And satellites are a mid-game contract. You really don't want contracts with high payouts that can be solved with a terrible launcher and "moar xenon". Especially when you consider what more xenon means for the player -.- (I've actually stopped using ion probes for that reason).

Edited January 2, 2015 by Greep

[samstarman5]

There definitely are imbalances in the contracts, and they will be tweaked over time. But players should be aware that this is a system that will never be accepted by everyone, no matter what numbers are changed. This is a scenario where there will always be people in the "MoreFunds" camp and those in the "SmallerRewards" camp. This is one of the reasons that makes the Difficulty settings and customization so great, so both camps can actually adjust their game as they see fit. That being said, contract payouts do need a bit more logic implemented. I, myself, am seeing a broad difference in payouts between the simplest of contracts without the slightest hint as to why one gets so much more a payday than another. I am tempted to say it is varying business practices between companies, but I have already seen two contracts for the same mission, offered by different companies that had the same enough payout to not have any difference.

We don't need to add more rules, as that is just putting band-aids on a damaged dam. But time should be taken to scrutinize the contracts and really take into account the likely resources needed to achieve a feat, and to pay accordingly. I haven't done the numbers, but I am fairly certain a number of the testing contracts barely pay for the approximate minimum needed to accomplish it. Not much point in taking on such contracts when the prestige and science offered is negligible, as well.

And satellites are a mid-game contract. You really don't want contracts with high payouts that can be solved with a terrible launcher and "moar xenon". Especially when you consider what more xenon means for the player -.- (I've actually stopped using ion probes for that reason).

That high payout is what keeps space programs alive. While KSP is corporate-funded and not government like NASA, there are still going to be times when money gets tight, such as when it becomes important to upgrade your facilities or when you want to get a multi-tiered mission going to Jool to take on many contracts there at once. If I can achieve that with a "terrible" launcher and spammed high-mileage engines that are still going to cost me a lot, I sure as heck would prefer that than to have to grind out many smaller contracts which would increase the odds of a disaster and losing prestige and funds. If a "terrible" launcher and spammed ion engines isn't your thing, that is fine. Plenty of other ways to get a rocket from point A to point B and other points beyond. The spacecraft exchange is a fine place to share such ideas. Though I am one to want to just observe and admire, or to build on such ideas. I am not one that is eager to see cookie-cutter designs in a game that offers so many different ways to get into space. Heck, with the right R&D choices, one can get a satellite into Kerbin orbit with a rocket built in the VAB using jets as the main launch platform. I know, as I have done just that, and it is fun as heck to pull off. Plus, it is certainly cheaper than conventional means.

But, on the other side of the coin, I will want that big lift-off, which means more engines, which will also mean more struts. And that, of course, will mean more funds spent. Sometimes you should be able to afford to go crazy building a rocket for that special mission. High paydays should mean something to a player.

I would love to see the contracts system have a few more requirements tied to it. Something along with the orbital requirements, "Max Craft Mass" and "Max Delta-V", and maybe even "Max Part Count"

That's a recipe for taking a ton of choice out of a game made for building your own rockets. Any of those three alone would force players to restrict their designs so much they end up realizing they are just making cookie cutter rockets for every mission. May as well have a mod that gives you every ideal design for each contract. Between that and MechJeb, the player doesn't even need to show up to the game and it is run by nothing but bots.

Sounds over the top? Maybe it is a bit exaggerated, but this really is the path to people just giving up on Career mode altogether, and eventually KSP as they will realize there is nothing left to do.

Putting more restrictions on contracts is a dumb idea, even if it is meant to get the player to think harder for the challenge. A lot of the part testing contracts and surveys alone give a fair bit of challenge, with satellite positioning being the next best step upward. Adding more bullet points and rules will only turn players off, and KSP is not a members-only club like League of Legends or the like. Everyone is welcome here, even to career mode.

If such restrictions really is your cup of tea, you do have the freedom to implement it yourself as all the tools are right there in the game, including determining how much fuel your craft has and how many parts. Go nuts, but it really is best to be left at that, a simple choice, not a forced rule.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

You.. can tweak your own payouts? Or intentionally disregard excessive contracts?

[Wanderfound]

As you noticed, the problem is in Admin, not Mission Control. It's a 200 Science contract, which is totally reasonable on its own.

Outsourced R&D was wildly overpowered in .25, and they haven't done anything to fix it in 0.90. OTOH, Patent Licensing and Fundraising Campaigns are desperately underpowered; you give up substantial science and rep in exchange for pennies. Nerf Outsourced R&D and buff the other two by at least a factor of ten.

For now: don't use Outsourced R&D. It ain't compulsory. Besides, by the time you've raised enough cash to unlock the heavily overpriced Tier 3 R&D, you're likely to be swimming in science anyway.

I've got about 5,000 science sitting in the bank, but I'm still a million short of being able to afford the building upgrade needed to spend any of it, despite grinding for a week. I've done so many "base on Minmus" contracts that it's virtually turned into a tourism business, and there are so many satellites up [1] that my map view looks like an explosion in a gyroscope factory.

[1] Today's cash-grinding trick: five satellite contracts (two Kerbin, two Mun, one Minmus) completed on a single <√15,000 launch with nothing but one SRB and a teensy bit of monoprop. Lightweight sats for the win.

[CorBlimey]

As you noticed, the problem is in Admin, not Mission Control. It's a 200 Science contract, which is totally reasonable on its own.

Outsourced R&D was wildly overpowered in .25, and they haven't done anything to fix it in 0.90. OTOH, Patent Licensing and Fundraising Campaigns are desperately underpowered; you give up substantial science and rep in exchange for pennies. Nerf Outsourced R&D and buff the other two by at least a factor of ten.

For now: don't use Outsourced R&D. It ain't compulsory. Besides, by the time you've raised enough cash to unlock the heavily overpriced Tier 3 R&D, you're likely to be swimming in science anyway.

I've got about 5,000 science sitting in the bank, but I'm still a million short of being able to afford the building upgrade needed to spend any of it, despite grinding for a week. I've done so many "base on Minmus" contracts that it's virtually turned into a tourism business, and there are so many satellites up [1] that my map view looks like an explosion in a gyroscope factory.

[1] Today's cash-grinding trick: five satellite contracts (two Kerbin, two Mun, one Minmus) completed on a single <√15,000 launch with nothing but one SRB and a teensy bit of monoprop. Lightweight sats for the win.

agree with all these points. The Admin 'factors' or ratios are the issue.

[CaptRobau]

The ratios are so out of whack. All the three currencies can be converted to each other with ratios ranging from 1:10 to 1:2 or so. Which is crazy, since there's max 1000 reputation, around 10000 science needed to unlock the tech tree and virtually unlimited funds (if you had to put a number on it, 10 million funds allows you to do anything you want/mess up a lot of missions). When ratios that should be 1:1000/1:10000000 but are 1:10 or 1:1, it's easy to see why those strategies are unbalanced.

[Laie]

Part testing payouts seem to be based on part costs, that's quite obvious if you compare different part testing contracts. The more expensive the part, the better the payout. Kerbodyne engines are the most expensive parts, by far, and hence have ridiculous payout. Ion engines and mainsails ain't bad, either.

I don't know why (sub)orbital pays so much better than in flight or an escape trajectory, and about as well as on/near the Mun or Minmus.

Full ACK to CaptRobeau, above, about the admin strategies.

[Crown]

I want to say that one of these unbalanced contract lifted me out of the financial hole. Because I hadn't enough money to upgrade something but my rockets needed to be bigger to get somewhere.

That was a contract that needed me to test the KR1X2 LFB in orbit with an advance of about 300'000√F and a reward of about 800'000√F. After that I was able to upgrade Mission Control, RD and Pad, and was able to launch some new rockets and actually fulfil some contract. Now I am at about 1'500'000√F and basically out of the money hole.

Yes, I agree that some contracts have very low payment, but up to this point I think there's a good balance between contract that focus more on money and other that focus more on science (or reputation).

All that money is gone quite quickly if you upgrade to the last tier of RD and VAB (and maybe some others). One or two really high payed contracts early in the game are really tempting and can, choosen wisely, close a gap in the gameplay

[dryer_lint]

Pretty sure I got a contract to test the RAPIER in orbit once... for a high amount of funds, a bit of rep... and 1,000 science

[thereaverofdarkness]

The problem appears to me to be the conversion rate of reputation and funds to science in the Administration Building. I think the ratio should be 10 times poorer.

Actually 100 times poorer makes a lot more sense. No, really. Consider this: You give up 40% of the payout for that (300,000) and get about 100 science in return. Is that not plenty for your money? Now consider giving up that science for cash. You sell 100 science and you'd get around 100,000. Is that enough? Would you accept less?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

As you noticed, the problem is in Admin, not Mission Control. It's a 200 Science contract, which is totally reasonable on its own.

Outsourced R&D was wildly overpowered in .25, and they haven't done anything to fix it in 0.90. OTOH, Patent Licensing and Fundraising Campaigns are desperately underpowered; you give up substantial science and rep in exchange for pennies. Nerf Outsourced R&D and buff the other two by at least a factor of ten.

For now: don't use Outsourced R&D. It ain't compulsory. Besides, by the time you've raised enough cash to unlock the heavily overpriced Tier 3 R&D, you're likely to be swimming in science anyway.

I've got about 5,000 science sitting in the bank, but I'm still a million short of being able to afford the building upgrade needed to spend any of it, despite grinding for a week. I've done so many "base on Minmus" contracts that it's virtually turned into a tourism business, and there are so many satellites up [1] that my map view looks like an explosion in a gyroscope factory.

[1] Today's cash-grinding trick: five satellite contracts (two Kerbin, two Mun, one Minmus) completed on a single <√15,000 launch with nothing but one SRB and a teensy bit of monoprop. Lightweight sats for the win.

Go for ion, even better payouts.