[Fixed] Undocking bypasses "build new ship" contract requirement

[pellinor]

I don't think unique vessel IDs are a safe thing to use. You can easily glue vessels together and chop the result into arbitrary pieces, so there is no well-defined way of assigning the previous vessel IDs to the new assemblies. I've seen enough strange behaviour with vessel names when separating docked vessels.

The 'atoms' in KSP are parts, so contract flags should stick to parts in some obvious way. Maybe the heaviest component, or the control part. Surely not the root part since this is invisible to the player, and may change in strange ways. The experiment module could be used as a 'fulfill contract' module that offers a button when the conditions are met. When activated, the button changes to a field that gives some indication that this part is already part of a contracted station or sattelite. The button on a research lab could be something like 'dedicate to minmus orbital station'.

[sal_vager]

Players could just refrain from abusing it

As far as I can see it's not really a problem that needs to be fixed.

[Superfluous J]

Players could just refrain from abusing it

As far as I can see it's not really a problem that needs to be fixed.

This is very true. It's not like you would ever accidentally do this. You have to go out of your way to abuse it. It's not like infinigliding where you always get a little bit of cheaty benefit from it just by flying a plane.

Still, it does allow someone to trick the system so if it can be fixed it should be

[Claw]

Well, okay. I think the crux of this whole thread is getting buried under a bunch of what-if-then-else trains of thought. So rather than refuting or discussing the new points, I'm going to circle back around the the nexus of the whole discussion...

Three of the new contract types - deploy satellite, construct orbital space station, and build lander base - have a common requirement that the ship must be "new, built for the agency after this contract is accepted".

So, to me the whole point of this contract requirement reads as.... build and launch a new ship. I don't know if I have been fully articulating my point, so maybe it's more important to fully understand the "spirit and intent" of this contract requirement.

So....Is the intent of the "build and launch a new vessel..." requirement to

- Launch a new vessel?

or

- Dedicate a given vessel to the completion of that contract?

I've always believed that the intent was to dedicate a vessel to the completion of the contract, but maybe I am wrong in this. "Build and launch a new vessel" seemed like a minimum way to sort of force the player to build a vessel dedicated to completing that contract, but it has weird side effects.

For example, in my career game...

- I accepted the "Explore Mun" contract.

- I built and launched a probe to go establish orbit, and beam back some science.

- I liked the probe, so I sent a twin copy to Minmus, since it takes longer to get there.

- Enroute to Minmus, a "put a satellite in a specific orbit around Minmus" contract shows up.

Now, I already have a probe on the way to Minmus to establish orbit and beam back some science. The problem... The "Minmus Specific Orbit" contract has a "Launch a new satellite" requirement. But I already launched a satellite that can do exactly what the contract wants me to do. Except you're telling me I can't use it because it was already launched.

So, with that example in mind, I ask again... What is the "spirit and intent" of the "Launch a new vessel" requirement?

- Launch a new vessel?

or

- Dedicate a given vessel to the completion of that contract?

As I said before, I personally believe the point is to dedicate a craft to the completion of that contract. If it's too confusing to use something like a "Right-Click->Fulfill-Contract" kind of button, then fair enough.

But then I might have to change my stance a bit and say: Arsonide, please do NOT make the "launch a new vessel" portion of the contract more restrictive. If it's going to be a passive system that doesn't require my input, I'd rather it not be overly restrictive, so that it's easier to manipulate later to suit my "gameplay" style. Then we can use Sal's advice and "refrain from abusing it."

Cheers,

~Claw

Edited January 7, 2015 by Claw

[Kerbart]

Left guys on there? No problem. "X Kerman, Y Kerman, and Z Kerman were returned to the KSC by Company XYZ with thanks, upon successful delivery of the station."

Returned to KSC? That seems a lot of work that's not really the responsibility of company XYZ. I'd say "were escorted out of the airlock." Where do you think these rescue missions were coming from?

[Superfluous J]

What is the "spirit and intent" of the "Launch a new vessel" requirement?

- Launch a new vessel?

or

- Dedicate a given vessel to the completion of that contract?

As I said before, I personally believe the point is to dedicate a craft to the completion of that contract. If it's too confusing to use something like a "Right-Click->Fulfill-Contract" kind of button, then fair enough.

I think it's "Launch a new vessel." I've always assumed that whatever entity is giving you the money to launch the vessel wants something on it. This is abstracted away in the game. Assume the part is physicsless and massless like so many items we already have, and it's not actually on the craft but the act of launching this new craft implies that the part is on it.

Nobody's paying you to just put a satellite into an orbit. They want SOMETHING. They want data from their doohickey, in particular. You can't get their doohickey on your satellite that's already on the way.

[Arsonide]

What is the "spirit and intent" of the "Launch a new vessel" requirement?

- Launch a new vessel?

or

- Dedicate a given vessel to the completion of that contract?

5thHorseman has the right idea. The intention was not to dedicate any old vessel to a particular contract. It actually was to dedicate a new vessel. The root of the problem here is that new vessel state is being modified. I was aware of the issues with docking modifying the state of a vessel, and had a workaround in place. That seems to be having some trouble, but I have more solutions available to me to fix this issue.

I never wanted players to have the ability to throw 300 satellites around the Mun with a few of those hive ships and be set for life with satellite contracts on the Mun. I similarly did not want the player to be en route to another mission and pick up one out of luck and/or convenience, as you outlined.

If we are speaking realistically, most satellites are purpose built...custom made for a singular purpose, and if that purpose was contracted out, Company B would be very upset if you used their property for Company A. If it wasn't contracted, then it is still the property of the people that sent it up there (government, NASA, etc), and they would have built it for a specific purpose - so even if Company A sent up the original satellite, and suddenly needed it for something else, it probably won't have the capabilities to do the new task, and another one will need to be sent up anyway.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Arsonide

[Claw]

I think it's "Launch a new vessel." I've always assumed that whatever entity is giving you the money to launch the vessel wants something on it. This is abstracted away in the game. ...You can't get their doohickey on your satellite that's already on the way.

5thHorseman has the right idea. The intention was not to dedicate any old vessel to a particular contract. It actually was to dedicate a new vessel. The root of the problem here is that new vessel state is being modified. I was aware of the issues with docking modifying the state of a vessel, and had a workaround in place. That seems to be having some trouble, but I have more solutions available to me to fix this issue.

Okay. I can get on board with abstraction in a game. That's fair enough.

I never wanted players to have the ability to throw 300 satellites around the Mun with a few of those hive ships and be set for life with satellite contracts on the Mun.

I suppose I would ask to not take one of my examples to an extreme just to disprove it. I can take plenty of examples to an extreme, if the only goal is to disprove it.

But getting beyond that, I would say that launching multiple satellites per rocket occurs.

The second stage engine ignites a few seconds after stage separation, and can be restarted multiple times to place multiple payloads into different orbits.

I also understand that this is a bit different than "having satellites on orbit." So if you're going to make some gaming modifications, that's why I ask that you don't make the "launch a new vessel" overly restrictive. I would argue that it's equally as "unrealistic" to force a singular launch for every contract. The existing system already allows for this sort of "multi satellite contract per launch" which is a perfectly "realistic" scenario.

Also, I think the other game mechanic "satellite must include thermometer" type requirements do a better job in limiting this sort of thing. And that mechanic fits in a lot better with "You can't get their doohickey on your satellite that's already on the way."

I similarly did not want the player to be en route to another mission and pick up one out of luck and/or convenience, as you outlined.

But there is plenty of opportunity in real life to assign new meaning/mission to a satellite or probe. If we're abstracting things away, why can't someone come along and say "here's some money to do XYZ with that probe of yours that's already enroute."? Or "your probe fulfilled it's primary mission, but now I'd like to fund you to reassign it to this task." That happens. Not every satellite launched is locked into it's mission forever. I don't believe Voyager was built with the intent on measuring the extent of the Heliosphere, yet here we are, and it's still getting funding.

If we are speaking realistically, most satellites are purpose built...custom made for a singular purpose, and if that purpose was contracted out, Company B would be very upset if you used their property for Company A. If it wasn't contracted, then it is still the property of the people that sent it up there (government, NASA, etc), and they would have built it for a specific purpose - so even if Company A sent up the original satellite, and suddenly needed it for something else, it probably won't have the capabilities to do the new task, and another one will need to be sent up anyway.

Well if we are going to go that route, then the KSP answer would be to completely hand over ownership to the "Company," which is what (I think) most of us say is a horrible idea from a gameplay standpoint. If my career game contracts are basically "you're Space X, I'm hiring you to put satellite XYZ into orbit ABC"... Space X/NASA/Boeing/WhateverContractorLaunchedIt is not going to have anything to do with it after that. They aren't going to track it, or move it, or arbitrarily use it to "Remote Tech" some piece of data for another contractor's other grand adventures. (At least not without more money. ) So I should had over that satellite.

The "Company B would be very upset if you used their property for Company A" is one of the problems we've been discussing (such as fulfilling two contracts by relocating the same satellite). And I think that issue is only tangentially addressed by forcing "launch a new vessel." That is why I asked, "What is the spirit and intent of this requirement?" It still doesn't feel like "launch a new rocket for every contract" to me so much as "fulfill my contract requirements with a dedicated satellite." It's subtle, but different.

That was also my argument for having the player tag a specific vessel (call it a probe core's PID if you want, specifics don't matter for our discussion) as the vessel designated to fulfill that specific contact. To me, that's more fun from a gameplay perspective because I can choose how I want to fulfill those contracts and it requires positive action on my part (just like the Test Part X contracts). If you make gameplay too linear, then it becomes repetitive (which some people call grindy, but I don't mean to imply that much negative connotation). I want flexibility in my options, rather than "open Staple Vessel XYZ, hit the go button, match orbit." And the GUI doesn't need to be complex. Just adding a symbol to the name could suffice, or put red text in the contract window when controlling a spent vessel (again, I think specifics for this are unimportant for this discussion).

The "Explore XXX" contracts are a good example of this. They could be extremely grindy if the first task was "establish orbit with a probe core." It would essentially be the same thing: "open Staple Vessel XYZ, hit the go button, match orbit." But they don't say that. They just say "Establish orbit." So now I get to decide not only how I want to do that, but what with. I can send a probe, kerbaled pod, or just go straight there and build a space station. I can even divert a craft if I want. That craft might never have been meant to go to Minmus, or maybe it was only supposed to fly-by, but who cares? It's a video game. No way in heck would something like that happen in real life, but I get to change my mind all the time in KSP.

Yes, you can probably refute these specific examples, but if we are talking about abstraction and pulling in reality, please also consider how things might be in the future. I'm not sure if Henry Ford ever imagined a time when there would be so many cars, that you could literally walk onto a street corner and get into one and go wherever you wanted in the city, even if you didn't own a car. Yet today we call them Taxi Cabs. Nobody needs to specifically build a taxi cab just to be there for them at the corner curb, yet there it is. It's abstracted away in our daily lives to the point where we don't even think about how it got there. Air travel is the same way. This was not always so... Perhaps it will be that way some day for satellites, space housing, or something similar.

However, I also understand what you are saying, that contracts definitely need some sort of restrictions on them or they also become meaningless. So I suppose that I'm also asking if you go with the "absolutely must launch a brand new vessel" for those contracts, make sure there is some level of flexibility in there for users to choose more than one path. And I mean decisions beyond "Do I launch this with a staple rocket, or use my space plane." Or even consider that maybe some or even most contracts could specify "build and launch a new vehicle," but maybe drop that requirement for some contracts on occasion, just to keep it different.

(Please note, that with all that said, I do not mean to imply that I dislike the satellite contracts...Or any of the new contracts. I think they are a great idea and fun, and I'm not trying to bag on them.)

Cheers,

~Claw

Edited January 7, 2015 by Claw

[WuphonsReach]

If we are speaking realistically, most satellites are purpose built...custom made for a singular purpose, and if that purpose was contracted out, Company B would be very upset if you used their property for Company A. If it wasn't contracted, then it is still the property of the people that sent it up there (government, NASA, etc), and they would have built it for a specific purpose - so even if Company A sent up the original satellite, and suddenly needed it for something else, it probably won't have the capabilities to do the new task, and another one will need to be sent up anyway.

DMagic's Orbital Science mod has an example of a "duration" contract. One of the contracts in that mod is "put satellite with RPWS+Magnetometer into specified orbit and leave it there for X days". Even though I can re-purpose an existing satellite to do so, the number of days in the contract is such that I can't do anything else with the satellite for the duration.

I would leave the existing orbital contract with requring a "new" vessel (and it's probably not worth trying to ensure it's a new launch) and simply change the requirement from "stable orbit for 10 seconds" to "stable orbit for 30/60/90/180 days". One star contracts might have a range of 20-40 days, two star contracts might have a 75-120 day range, three star contracts might have a 150-250 day range.

It limits the abuse potential, without needing to change much of anything.

For balance purposes, my feeling is that on normal difficulty, a particular contract should pay out cost + 2k/day of time needed to complete the contract. Otherwise contracts that take a lot of time (and eat up a contract slot) are not worth doing.

So for a 30-day contract around Kerbin that would be about 10k + 30x2k for a total of 70k.

For a Eve contract with a 90-day orbit requirement, 50k + 187x2k (optimal transit time is 187d) + 90x2k = 327k payout.

For an orbital contract around Jool with a 180-day requirement, 50k + 1388 days of transit @ 2k/day + 180 days @ 2k/day = 3186k payout.

[Arsonide]

I suppose I would ask to not take one of my examples to an extreme just to disprove it. I can take plenty of examples to an extreme, if the only goal is to disprove it.

Oh no, I didn't mean to disprove. I just frequently speak in hyperbole. It's a character flaw - any number I throw out will probably be in the hundreds.

I'm definitely open to feedback and ideas - that's what got Fine Print to where it is today. It is just, a lot of brainstorming, ideas, and prototyping happen behind the scenes, and I just wanted you guys to know where my thought patterns were when I first did this. Feel free to poke holes in them. Similar discussions have sparked entire new features in the past.

[Claw]

It is just, a lot of brainstorming, ideas, and prototyping happen behind the scenes...

Oh, for sure. It's actually refreshing to be able to discuss this stuffs directly anyway.

I would leave the existing orbital contract with requring a "new" vessel (and it's probably not worth trying to ensure it's a new launch) and simply change the requirement from "stable orbit for 10 seconds" to "stable orbit for 30/60/90/180 days".

This is an interesting concept too, although I'm not sure how I feel about it yet.

Although it's another if-then branch that strays away from what I think is the core piece. "New" vessel still feels like a way to force "commit a unique craft to this contract." To which the duration thing you propose actually enforces a commitment, but also doesn't hamstring the player to "launch a new vessel." I would definitely support a steady payout with this system, vice having to wait till the very end to cash the whole contract. That way if something happens (and the craft drifts out of orbit or mistakes are made.....), it doesn't completely disrupt all of the work and waiting. But contract slots are also exceedingly precious, especially in the early game.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Kerano]

Players could just refrain from abusing it

As far as I can see it's not really a problem that needs to be fixed.

That's not true though. The way I originally encountered this bug was by simply refueling my Duna lander at my tanker station in orbit. The lander does not have enough delta-v to return to Kerbin without refueling, so docking to the tanker is mandatory - not optional.

The only possible way to avoid triggering the exploit in this scenario is to launch a new tanker from Kerbin every time I want to refuel, which is wasteful of both funds and time. (Docking to any tanker which was launched from Kerbin prior to the date the current ship was launched will trigger the bug.)

[Spheniscine]

There is actually something that I want to bring up about the whole "keep orbit for 30/90/whatever days" thing. There are two problems with it:

1. Early levels of Mission Control are limited by the number of contracts they could have, and

2. Some contracted satellite orbits aren't actually stable due to intersection with moon orbits. I had a contracted polar satellite that got very close to Mun's orbit eject out of Kerbin's SOI when I wasn't looking.

[vexx32]

Aye, those are the primary problems with that kind of solution. The first could be worked around -- as Claw mentioned, steady payouts might make it worth it.

The second would have to be fixed, though. I had one contract get me to setup a satellite in retrograde orbit at approximately Mun altitude. That one wasn't staying there for long, for sure.

[Kerano]

Yeah, good point... I had an almost perfect retrograde Ike satellite contract once. Couldn't maintain that one for 10 hours, let alone 30 days.

[D'Car]

Let's take another view on this. For the sake of argument, let's say I have the power to entirely ditch the requirement for launching a new craft and, instead, introduce the requirement of having the craft in the desired location for x amount of time (say, days or weeks). This would circumvent all the problems of flagging particular ships as having been used for a previous mission while also allowing reusing these ships as long as fuel is provided for them. I would also want to change the contract length to a point where it wouldn't be feasible to have, as an extreme example, one satellite complete five orbital positioning contracts which were accepted simultaneously. With a drastically shortened mission window, you would be forced to either have multiple ships in space or only accept one contract at a time. The mission payouts are already acknowledged as needing a balance pass, so now would be the perfect time to visit this solution as really being a feature. Plus, you know, the way kerbal science works you could just argue that the corporations issuing the contracts want to have enough time to get some science from some place.

[mikegarrison]

Actually, I rather like sending up one satellite and seeing how many contracts I can fulfill with it. It's not "realistic" but it is challenging. How much delta-V do I need to get two polar Kerbin orbits, one orbit around Ike, and then one orbit around Tylo? Or which order should I try to hit these three orbits with in order to most efficiently cover them all? Plus, I can then try to land my probe back at KSC and recover some of my expenses that way.

The new launch thing just keeps me from parking a satellite around every body with a big amount of delta-V and re-using it whenever any new contract comes along. That was the obvious strategy with the earlier contracts, where you just had to get science from a planet or moon.

I don't like the space station or outpost contacts as much, but that's because space stations and outposts are basically worthless in terms of game play. You can't do anything with them, and if you leave them there you can't even keep gaining experience for your kerbals. There should be some meaningful reward for keeping an outpost going somewhere. Maybe also you could get contacts for servicing it and/or swapping crew members.

As it is, I just build a regular lander and make sure it holds enough kerbals. Land, get the money, and then then take off with my "outpost" and come back home.

[perk]

I don't like the space station or outpost contacts as much, but that's because space stations and outposts are basically worthless in terms of game play. You can't do anything with them, and if you leave them there you can't even keep gaining experience for your kerbals. There should be some meaningful reward for keeping an outpost going somewhere. Maybe also you could get contacts for servicing it and/or swapping crew members.

I totally second your statement, even though i like building small "efficient" stations and outposts for the different celestial objects, it annoys me that they are useless after the fact.

Servicing contracts really sound like a good idea to fix that.

[Superfluous J]

I totally second your statement, even though i like building small "efficient" stations and outposts for the different celestial objects, it annoys me that they are useless after the fact.

Servicing contracts really sound like a good idea to fix that.

Note that I've found lots of uses for both ground and orbital bases (and their requisite contracts) while setting up Karbonite bases in my most recent playthrough. With resource collection coming in to stock these contracts will see a lot more usefulness.

[perk]

Is there any ETA for resource collection in stock? So far i have avoided modding, but maybe i should finally get my feet wet...

[WuphonsReach]

Is there any ETA for resource collection in stock? So far i have avoided modding, but maybe i should finally get my feet wet...

Probably measured in "months" not "days"...

What you might want to try is setting up a mod that adds to the Contract Configurator mod, to do resource collection using Karbonite or the MKS/OKS resources.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101604-0-90-Contract-Configurator-v0-6-5-2015-02-08

I don't know if resource collection can be done in Contract Configurator, but a lot of add-on contract mods make use of its system to streamline the process of adding new contracts.

[nightingale]

Probably measured in "months" not "days"...

What you might want to try is setting up a mod that adds to the Contract Configurator mod, to do resource collection using Karbonite or the MKS/OKS resources.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101604-0-90-Contract-Configurator-v0-6-5-2015-02-08

I don't know if resource collection can be done in Contract Configurator, but a lot of add-on contract mods make use of its system to streamline the process of adding new contracts.

Resource collection has some limited support in Contract Configurator. You can have a parameter that says "have X quantity of resource Y" on your vessel. There is no parameter that says where you have to get it from, but if you combine it with a parameter that says "be on the Mun", and another that says "have a Karbonite drill", then getting it from the ground becomes the most viable option for the player.

In future I'll be looking at some sort of Regolith support - but I'm not 100% sure what shape that will take. It could be that ends up being more about the detection side ("find a new source of Karbonite with concentration > x%", "Find what the Karbonite concentration is in 3 biomes on the Mun"). Also, I'm a little bit gun-shy since this will get significantly worked over in KSP 1.0, and I don't want to write stuff that will have to get re-written in a couple months. Although from what I understand if I use Regolith it's pretty safe since RoverDude has said he will move it over to whatever ISRU framework Squad develops (and he said this even before he was involved with Squad on it).

[D'Car]

How much delta-V do I need to get two polar Kerbin orbits, one orbit around Ike, and then one orbit around Tylo?

That kind of thinking could be an alternate solution, provided contracts can be configured to say you have to get into a specific set of orbits in a certain order. No more cheaty feelings by parking a single satellite docked to a tiny space station around every celestial and you're guaranteed to be using more fuel in the process.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I don't know if resource collection can be done in Contract Configurator, but a lot of add-on contract mods make use of its system to streamline the process of adding new contracts.

ISRU contracts exist in stock, they've just set to have 0 by default. In GameData\Squad\Contracts\Contracts.cfg, change MaximumExistent in the ISRU section to something other than 0.

[Honeybadga]

Sorry about necroing old threads but I just wanna know if this was adressed during v1.0 development.