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

[Kerano]

KSP 0.90.0 career mode, no mods.

There's a way to exploit docking to allow you to bypass the "build new ship" contract requirement.

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". This requirement can be bypassed by undocking the ship from a parent or older ship. In practice this means that if you have an old orbital fuel station to which you dock a ship that was previously ineligible for a contract due to not being "newly constructed", after undocking the ship will be registered "as new" and fully eligible to complete the contract.

Another method I've used is to launch a satellite pre-docked to a mothership. The single satellite can then undock, complete a contract, redock, and repeat the cycle indefinitely. The only requirement is that the satellite does not contain the "root" part of the ship (this must be on the mothership). Effectively it's possible to use the same old ship to complete an infinite number of contracts all requiring a "new ship to be built after the contract is completed", provided the ship has a docking port.

Of course this could be argued as a "feature" rather than a bug, but I thought I'd report it just in case.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Kerano

[vexx32]

Although I've not conclusively tested it myself, I believe it's actually possible to complete more than one contract consecutively with the same ship or satellite as well, provided:

1. All the contracts you're trying to complete were accepted before you launch the ship to complete the first one
   
2. All the contracts you're trying to complete are met one after another in the same play session
   

With that in mind, I do believe this is (at least in part) a bug.

However, the issue is not so much that this is obviously a bug -- it's that there isn't really an elegant solution to this. I was discussing this with technicalfool the other day in IRC (or was it Claw? I forget; anyway, that's not the important bit), and we came up with a total of two plausible solutions:

• The contracting company 'takes control' of the craft after the contract is completed, so the player cannot use it at all after it has fulfilled the contract. This creates issues if there are missions to send manned craft to certain locations, for example, and might end up in lost crew, among other things.
  
• A flag is set in the completed contract which references the ID of the craft that met the requirements. No other contracts that bear the "you must launch a new craft" condition can be completed with a craft that is already attached to a previously completed contract.
  

These are not exhaustive, and there are still some edge cases where the behaviour could end up being undesirable or unpredictable, but as far as I can see these are the most simple and elegant solutions to this issue.

Also, I'll be marking this properly as a bug, as it certainly seems to be one.

My own reproduction steps for this are the following:

1. Accept multiple similar contracts to launch probes into specific orbit. For ease of reproduction, they should be in orbit around Kerbin, Mun, or Minmus, with reasonably similar orbital planes.
   
2. Build a single satellite capable of achieving at least two of the selected contracts.
   
3. Launch the satellite, and proceed to complete one of the contracts.
   
4. Note that upon completion, the remaining contracts still have the initial "launch a new probe" condition marked as complete.
   
5. Proceed to complete subsequent contracts with the same satellite/probe.
   
6. ???
   
7. Profit!!! (In this case, quite literally.)
   

[Kerano]

Yep, I've noticed that version of the bug as well - it seems to be a bit more commonly encountered. The difference with the "docking" version is that not only can you complete multiple contracts with the same ship which were accepted before you launched it, but you can complete newly taken contracts with the ship accepted after it has been launched - and do so indefinitely into the future.

The easiest money from this exploit is probably in orbital stations (since they require no specific orbit) - simply dock one to an old fuel tanker, undock to claim the reward, then redock. Rinse and repeat. Only cost is mere pennies worth of monopropellant to push the station out and then back in a few metres.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Kerano

[Claw]

(or was it Claw? I forget; anyway, that's not the important bit), and we came up with a total of two plausible solutions:

I am appalled at your lack of memory capacity...you need to upgrade to Vexx64

• A flag is set in the completed contract which references the ID of the craft that met the requirements. No other contracts that bear the "you must launch a new craft" condition can be completed with a craft that is already attached to a previously completed contract.
  

I think this one was my favorite. I haven't been able to imagine a way around it yet, and it still offers the greatest flexibility for the user. They still get to keep and use the actual satellite if they want, but they can't fulfill another "put a satellite in orbit XX" contract. It still suffers from some limitations, as does the "turning over the satellite to the company" approach. I'm not really sure yet which makes the best sense from a gameplay standpoint.

But from the standpoint of "build a new ship/satellite," either of the solutions Vexx listed nullifies that requirement completely. Yes, you could still complete a contract with a vessel that's already in space. However, you could only do it once with any particular vessel. And really, from a contract fulfillment standpoint, does it matter if the satellite that fulfills my contract comes from space or the launch pad? So long as it met all of my requirements (orbit, power, parts, etc...). Tracking the ID takes care of reusing the satellite for "put a satellite in orbit XXX" farming.

The other thing this opens up, is that a player can send a satellite freighter to other planets and await contracts, sort of a mother ship with multiple satellites. That way the player can fulfill "satellite in orbit around XXX" contracts without waiting (or timewarping) years of game time for the one, newly launched satellite to get to there. But it also doesn't force you to do it the freighter way. If you still want to wait and launch a new satellite to fulfill, you can.

Tracking the ID allows the player to continue using the satellite for their own purposes, but also prevents it from being abused for more contracts. However, I still find fault with this because "if I was the company," I would be pretty upset that my newly acquired satellite just got moved by the contractor I paid to put it there. But as a game player, having satellites littered all over the place that I can't do anything with, or having them just disappear (upon contract completion) also seems 'wrong.'

This same approach could be used to identify a space station for specific contract fulfillment. Tagging the ID as having been used by a contract, the the station can't be triggered again to fulfill the requirement.

In either case, I guess that was a long way of saying "yes, I agree that it should be changed a bit." Not that Vexx or I can control it.

Cheers,

~Claw

[im_sparticus]

Completing a station around mun with a contract for a similar station around Kerbin requires fulfilling the Kerbin one first (unless ou park for less than 10 seconds). That's not so bad, but if I complete and launch a station to Ike only upon arrival to find it completed a contract on Kerbin and is unusable for the contract at Ike I'd be a little unhappy.

Perhaps "run a test" once the contract is complete so as to avoid unintentionally fulfilling one en route to another. (Obviously not an issue for satellite contracts, those orbits are never unintentional.)

[RexKramer]

I'd like to add my two cents worth.

While I do agree that there are several situations where you can get around the intention of the contract, there are a couple of cases where I think excessive limits could stifle creative gameplay.

One situation that seems to come up often is having two satellite contracts around the same body come up at the same time, say Kerbin for example. Aside from launching two sats from two separate launches, there are a couple of approaches you could use. One is to put enough fuel on the sat to be able to reach both orbits. Another is to piggyback two sats on the same launch vehicle. I don't see how either approach could be considered cheating, or not fulfilling the contract. It's a matter of thinking about cost-effective ways to accomplish a mission.

On the other hand, parking a vessel in orbit with 20 small sats ready to be undocked for sat contracts does seem to contradict the 'launch new vessel' spirit of the contract. I'm not sure I'm on board with the mindset that each launch only be allowed to complete a single contract however.

Another case I've seen (but haven't tried myself) is outpost missions. Early outpost (orbital or surface) missions appear to specify roughly 5-Kerbal capacity. Later, outposts with additional capacity are specified, sometimes with additional equipment like labs. Currently (again, haven't tried this myself yet..), you can simply add 5-Kerbal capacity to an existing 5-Kerbal outpost, and have it complete the contract. Does this meet the letter of the contract? No, it does not. Should a lot of effort be spent eliminating that option to players? Well, I'm not sure about that. Why not use a piece of equipment we already own to make the mission more affordable?

On the other hand, I can imagine the following contract: Build a new 15 Kerbal outpost, with science lab an a thermometer. You already have a 15 Kerbal outpost with a science lab, but no thermometer. Now, you just have to dock a thermometer and viola! For maybe $15k launch costs, you have just built a 'new' 15 Kerbal outpost with science lab and thermometer. While I think adding on to existing outposts that you own is a great idea, adding a thermometer which cost next to nothing to launch maybe is going a bit too far. Ok, way too far.

I think everyone who has posted here has had excellent thoughts on practical ways to make contracts better. My suggestion is to be careful about how much you limit player options for completing contracts. Being able to use a single launch vehicle to complete multiple contracts has certainly added a lot of interest to the game for me.

[Claw]

Perhaps "run a test" once the contract is complete so as to avoid unintentionally fulfilling one en route to another. (Obviously not an issue for satellite contracts, those orbits are never unintentional.)

Yes, it wasn't listed as such but that was included in my conversation with Vexx. My thought was to make it a Right-Click->"Fulfill Contract" option on the control parts (probe core, capsule, etc) as you state, rather than an automatic function like the current "stable for 10 seconds." At the time, we were discussing satellites, but that would work equally as well for stations, base components, etc.

It doesn't have to say "Fulfill Contract," but can also be the same setup for "Release to Industry" or whatever based on how the contract fulfillment is done. But in my opinion, positive action by the gamer (such as right-click->test-part) is usually better, at least once they learn they have to do it.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Supernovy]

Another is to piggyback two sats on the same launch vehicle.

This is the edge case that keeps coming up with these sort of solutions. Say you've accepted two satellite contracts and make a rocket that can deliver both into orbit. Your upper stage with both sats attached arrives in the first orbit to detach the first sat, but the upper stage completes the contract and either you lose control of it, it disappears, or you travel to the next satellite orbit with it to find that you can't complete that contract because your craft already completed a contract (The ID reference suggestion).

Luckily, I think the right click "run a test" or "Fulfil Contract" option avoids all the problems like this.

[Claw]

My suggestion is set up so that you aren't able to reuse a satellite for more than one contract. So yes, that would eliminate this:

One is to put enough fuel on the sat to be able to reach both orbits..

Personally, I don't think you should be able to do this, because you were contracted to put a satellite into an orbit, presumably because the company that contracted you to put it there has some designated use. If you're allowed to just move it right off the bat, the satellite they just paid for isn't very useful.

On the other hand, my suggestion supports (and maybe encourages?) this:

Another is to piggyback two sats on the same launch vehicle.

Or even your later example of having a (as I call it) satellite freighter. Each satellite that fulfills a contract is then tied to that contract. My suggestion isn't to tie it to a launch vehicle, but rather a vessel designated by the player. Rather than the game assuming a particular craft and tagging it as "used." (See my explanation below, tied to Supernovy's comment.) So you separate one of the satellites, and tag it for contract completion (and not the mothership).

I don't see how either approach could be considered cheating, or not fulfilling the contract. It's a matter of thinking about cost-effective ways to accomplish a mission.

I don't think either method is "cheaty." Also, I'm trying to not inject too much reality. But I am trying to look at it from two standpoints (put on your gameplayer hat).

- If I'm the "company" that's issuing the "satellite in XXX orbit" contract, I'm paying for the Kerbal Space Program (the player) to put a satellite there for me to use. As the payer of a contract, I would be pretty upset if the satellite I just paid for was taken from me to use for some other company's contract. This is effectively what the player is allowed to do, by hopping a satellite from contract to contract.

- As a video game player, I also don't want the game to assume things for me (like tagging a space station "used" in LKO when it's meant for the Mun).

While this does violate the "launch a new satellite" part of the contract, I think it actually addresses the spirit and philosophy in a more fundamental way. It ensures that you've actually dedicated a satellite/station/base to the completion of a contract, whether it was launched after the contract was accepted or before. I also fully agree that I wouldn't want a system that's overly restrictive, or forces a "single contract per launch" scenario for all cases.

or you travel to the next satellite orbit with it to find that you can't complete that contract because your craft already completed a contract (The ID reference suggestion).

Luckily, I think the right click "run a test" or "Fulfil Contract" option avoids all the problems like this.

My suggestion is that these two things go together. You Right-Click->Fulfill-Contract to complete. That requires positive player input saying "This is my designated satellite/station/base." The ID should also be stored to ensure that satellite isn't later moved to insta-complete another contract.

So the ID piece ensures the satellite/station/base is only used for one contract.

The Right-Click->Fulfill-Contract ensures the game doesn't tag a satellite/station/base as "used" when I intend it for something else.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Superfluous J]

I support the concept of simply erasing the station once you've completed the contract. "Company XYZ has taken control of the station. You have no further need to track it."

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."

[Claw]

I support the concept of simply erasing the station once you've completed the contract.

I'm still a bit torn on this one. To some extent, it certainly simplifies a lot of problems and keeps LKO in the tracking station from becoming cluttered (though some people like that). On the other hand, I think it would also stifle design. If the player knows their station is going to evaporate completely, there isn't much motivation to put a lot of design into it. Or to build anything onto it beyond the barest minumum. And I don't mean this to say that the player needs motivation to build a station. But I am saying that care should be taken to avoid negative motivators.

To keep with the station contract example, a player could use the contract to fund their plans for a refueling or science station. If the player has desire or need for a refueling outpost, the contract is a nice complement to that goal. But if the station is going to disappear, the station built to fulfil the contract becomes a throw away. In fact, it's a disincentive to have anything other than the required parts, since it's entirely lost and the player can't even expand on it later if desired.

I do see virtue to the idea of completely turning over craft to fulfill contracts (especially satellites). But I also think, from a gameplay standpoint, that it has potential negative side effects. My biggest concern being that it would make contracts feel more grindy, since craft would start to feel throw away and because of the negative incentive for design.

Not sure if that makes sense...

Cheers,

-Claw

Edited January 5, 2015 by Claw

[RexKramer]

One question is what gets 'tagged'? I ask this thinking of how difficult it will be to ensure that vessel is not available for contract use again. Does the vessel get tagged, or the probe core, or you may need to make sure that all probe cores installed get tagged. I'm thinking this because sometimes when you dock with another vessel, some of the craft flags get reset, just wondering if it would be simpler to flag the core(s) than the vessel.

Regarding wording the completion menu, you could prompt the user to 'assign to XYZ company', or 'assign to XYZ contract 24'.

Having the completion dialogue pop up automatically when the parameters are met could reduce the volume of questions in the forum and bug tracker, 'I reached orbit but contract won't complete...' On the other hand, having the dialogue pop up automatically might increase users accidentally clicking accept when they are still attached to the mothership..

I somewhat disagree with allowing players to park a 20-probe ship in orbit, waiting for sat contracts to come up, but in the end not really a big deal, if nothing else that flexibility allows players to play to suit their own style.

A final question: How would the game handle adding on to existing orbital or surface outposts? The example would be you have a 5-Kerbal outpost, but now have a contract to build a 10-Kerbal outpost. Does adding capacity for 5 more Kerbals to the existing outpost complete the contract? I personally think it should. Otherwise, why have the requirement for a docking port? The docking port requirement specifically envisions that at some point the outpost will be expanded in some way.

[tater]

I support the concept of simply erasing the station once you've completed the contract. "Company XYZ has taken control of the station. You have no further need to track it."

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."

I agree. That or the station is still there in orbit, but you lose ownership, it becomes an "NPC" facility. These places can be a source for where "stranded kerbals" come from

Perhaps future stranded kerbal missions can in fact require that they be returned to that station OR kerbin.

[Superfluous J]

I do see virtue to the idea of completely turning over craft to fulfill contracts (especially satellites). But I also think, from a gameplay standpoint, that it has potential negative side effects. My biggest concern being that it would make contracts feel more grindy, since craft would start to feel throw away and because of the negative incentive for design.

You, sir, have officially changed someone's mind on the Internet. Congratulations. I didn't think of the fact that deleting the stations would completely erase all incentive to do anything more than cause people to stick a bunch of lander cans, a docking port, a single OX-STAT, and a communitron together and dump it in Munar orbit. That's no fun.

One question is what gets 'tagged'? I ask this thinking of how difficult it will be to ensure that vessel is not available for contract use again. Does the vessel get tagged, or the probe core, or you may need to make sure that all probe cores installed get tagged.

Well they already mark the active vessel with a time stamp, right? Why not put that time stamp on every pod and capsule as well? Or instead. When doing the contract, it doesn't check the SHIP. It checks all the ship's parts that can be controlled from. If ANY of those were created BEFORE the contract was accepted, that probe doesn't count.

[tater]

You could combine your original post, 5thhorseman, with Claw's (good) point, and have them be in orbit, but owned by another entity. Then new missions could be generated around that, for example resupply missions, or even taking up kerbals. Instead of endless build a station, then the same entity can ask for expansions to their existing station.

Regarding "grindy" minimalistic stations, the requirements could always include specific parts (habitat, science lab, etc) as many already seem to have.

[KiloMike]

This wouldn't fix all of the "new ship" issues, but for satellites, what about having the contract supply a specific satellite core to use. I don't mean specify a core to use, but rather have an actual core available in the list for that contract. The "XYZ Satellite Core" is only available while you have the XYZ Contract active. That would require you to create the satellite after contract acceptance, but wouldn't prohibit you from using for a second purpose afterward, say... Kethane Scanning, or Remote Tech Comms Sat.

Or maybe, rather than a specific satellite core, (and this would fix the issues with all of the "new ship" contracts) what about having to specify which contract(s) a ship is being built to complete while in the VAB? You could still set flags on specific parts that are being tested (boosters, decouplers, engines, etc) so as to allow a single ship to complete multiple contracts, but any given ship's core or capsule could only be assigned to one "new ship" contract. Seems a little more realistic that way. NASA doesn't build and launch a bunch of "just in case we need them" satellites.

Just a thought!

Kevin

[vexx32]

Hmm. I don't know if that could be logistically done, but that is certainly quite an elegant solution there, KiloMike. That way, you could do just about anything to fulfil the contract without unintended consequences...

[Kerano]

The "unique part" idea is a pretty good one for satellites. In the case of orbital stations and lander bases though, it'd be relatively simple to complete a contract just by docking the unique part and little else to an existing spacecraft satisfying the other contract requirements. Then again, you'd still have to transport the unique part there from Kerbin and rendezvous after accepting the contract, so it's still an improvement on the current exploitable system.

I'm personally not in favour of any loss of control of spacecraft following contract completion. I don't want to spend hours building and transporting a spaceship to a new planet/moon only to have the game arbitrarily revoke my control of it due to completing a contract. Sure it's not particularly realistic, but it's more fun if it remains as "my" spacecraft.

What I'd like to see though is a variant of tater's idea: add an additional class of contracts called "expand station", which require X number of crew/modules/fuel mass to be added to a station presently in orbit around a planet/moon. These contracts would only be triggered if you had a station with a docking port presently orbiting that planet/moon. The station would have to not leave the SOI of the planet/moon before the contract was completed. I'd very much enjoy having contracts generated that reward me for interacting with my existing stations.

There could also be similar "expand base" contracts for existing landers on different planets/moons. Maybe landing the required number of crew/modules/fuel mass within a certain distance of the landed base (2.5 km physics range?) would trigger the contract completion instead of docking, since for landed craft a docking port isn't necessarily going to be accessible for connecting new things to (depending on the orientation etc).

Edited January 6, 2015 by Kerano

[Claw]

You, sir, have officially changed someone's mind on the Internet. Congratulations.

That's no easy feat!

Well they already mark the active vessel with a time stamp, right? Why not put that time stamp on every pod and capsule as well? Or instead. When doing the contract, it doesn't check the SHIP. It checks all the ship's parts that can be controlled from. If ANY of those were created BEFORE the contract was accepted, that probe doesn't count.

That works too, and I suppose you could never build any sort of satellite "freighter." I use the term "freighter" loosely, but could really be anything including a station with extra satellites or an on-orbit space plane, whatever... I still have preference for positive player action, because it makes the player feel more in charge.

You could combine your original post, 5thhorseman, with Claw's (good) point, and have them be in orbit, but owned by another entity. Then new missions could be generated around that, for example resupply missions, or even taking up kerbals. Instead of endless build a station, then the same entity can ask for expansions to their existing station.

Regarding "grindy" minimalistic stations, the requirements could always include specific parts (habitat, science lab, etc) as many already seem to have.

I've had this thought too, but it opens up a whole new route of career mode which is different than what exists. I wasn't going to open that can of worms, but since you did...

It would certainly require a redirection though. A game like this would be much more driven by a semi-set run of a scenario where a Industry would basically "build up" through some sort of space venture requests. The only thing that concerns me with such a thing is it definitely lends the game to more of a "Space X" flavor, in that I'm a company for hire. Rather than the more Sandboxy "freestyle" that it has now. Although the career mode seems like it's leaning that way, Squad still seems like they want to retain the open feeling, rather than funneling the gameplay experience in a particular direction. Even the "set" contracts are rather vague in their requirements. "Explore Mun" isn't very directive on how it needs to be done, just get there and retrieve some science.

Of course, this idea by itself is a pretty big topic, and definitely has a lot of merit.

The grindy minimalistic stations were a concern of mine if the player's work were simply deleted from the game. I feel that would be a disincentive to build anything beyond the absolute minimum, since design, function, and roleplay are completely nullified. Any "goodness" or time spent on my creations is relatively wasted since it simply fizzles out of existence. I would prefer your above suggestion, where I turn it over to some other entity and possibly get contracted later to do additional work.

[Claw]

This wouldn't fix all of the "new ship" issues, but for satellites, what about having the contract supply a specific satellite core to use. I don't mean specify a core to use, but rather have an actual core available in the list for that contract. The "XYZ Satellite Core" is only available while you have the XYZ Contract active.

Possibly, but without creating multiple unique systems, this might run into the existing problem with test contracts. You can basically steal free use of a part (such as a turbojet engine) before you're able to get it in the tech tree. So long as you don't complete the contract, you can abuse access to the part. This system still doesn't stop me from being able to move an existing satellite to fulfill a new contract, unless there are a lot of unique parts. And I'm not a fan of unique parts because it chips away at precious memory space for things that have limited accessibility.

You can get similar functionality by tagging the ship's unique ID when the player gets the ship into the appropriate place (be it a satellite, station, or base) says "this is my vessel." The game already knows if the ship meets requirements, and is in the right spot. It's just a matter of holding onto the ID somewhere so that the ID cannot be used again. So rather than a unique part, it's a unique identifier.

NASA doesn't build and launch a bunch of "just in case we need them" satellites.

Very true! Although I also like to avoid overly restricting gameplay because of real world choices. We could indeed build a bunch of "just in case we need them" satellites if we wanted too, given a big enough budget. And perhaps the GPS constellation is an example of that. Not only are there extras in space, but there's a warehouse of them waiting to be launched.

The "unique part" idea is a pretty good one for satellites. In the case of orbital stations and lander bases though, it'd be relatively simple to complete a contract just by docking the unique part and little else to an existing spacecraft satisfying the other contract requirements. Then again, you'd still have to transport the unique part there from Kerbin and rendezvous after accepting the contract, so it's still an improvement on the current exploitable system.

Yeah, orbital stations are a bit trickier. Do you want to force the player to build an entirely new station? Or is it okay to expand an existing one? I suppose this is where tater's idea comes into play, where some contracts naturally follow on to previous ones (and as you also stated). I actually haven't done many station/base contracts, so I'm not sure how they currently build.

I'm personally not in favour of any loss of control of spacecraft following contract completion. I don't want to spend hours building and transporting a spaceship to a new planet/moon only to have the game arbitrarily revoke my control of it due to completing a contract. Sure it's not particularly realistic, but it's more fun if it remains as "my" spacecraft.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In my mind, if people are role playing their game, it's less jarring for me to delete my vessel if I want to consider it "turned over" than it is to delete it from a player who would rather keep it.

Cheer,

~Claw

Edited January 6, 2015 by Claw

[Arsonide]

I'd actually discussed all of these solutions with my partner while we were working on Fine Print as a mod, and ultimately, killing control of a vessel or deleting a vessel from the game were things we thought just wouldn't be that fun for the player.

However, the "new" requirement being subverted by docking and undocking is odd to say the least. I will be looking into that.

[Claw]

and ultimately, killing control of a vessel or deleting a vessel from the game were things we thought just wouldn't be that fun for the player.

I agree with this on multiple levels. However, what about logging and tracking the vessel ID in the contract once it's complete? This would prevent a player from using that vessel to fulfill other contracts without rendering the vessel useless or removing control. It also nullifies the need to have a "launch a new craft" requirement, which is also easily circumvented anyway.

I will confess that I've mostly been looking at this from the satellite contract perspective, and it possibly overly complicates station/base contracts. I've actually not done enough fiddling with station/base contracts enough to offer how this ID tagging system could/should be adopted. Perhaps I need to do more "testing" in my own career save. I think a similar system would work, depending on how much you want to force the player to "make a new station/base" vs. expanding the existing one.

Cheers,

~Claw

[KiloMike]

Possibly, but without creating multiple unique systems, this might run into the existing problem with test contracts. You can basically steal free use of a part (such as a turbojet engine) before you're able to get it in the tech tree. So long as you don't complete the contract, you can abuse access to the part.

I wasn't suggesting adding an entirely new part with new functionality. I was thinking more along the lines of contract providing a "branded" copy of an unlocked core, e.g. the "XYZ Aerospace Octo2", which a player wouldn't gain any advantage in using. The part doesn't have to be free, just uniquely branded. I don't know how that would be done though, which is why I preferred the other idea of tagging the part to the contract during construction.

And I'm not a fan of unique parts because it chips away at precious memory space for things that have limited accessibility.

Agreed.

You can get similar functionality by tagging the ship's unique ID when the player gets the ship into the appropriate place (be it a satellite, station, or base) says "this is my vessel." The game already knows if the ship meets requirements, and is in the right spot. It's just a matter of holding onto the ID somewhere so that the ID cannot be used again. So rather than a unique part, it's a unique identifier.

Yes, this is similar in thinking to my other idea of tagging the ship to the contract during construction, the difference being that if you could find a way to require it during construction, it eliminates the idea of the "Satellite Freighter" from above, assuming that is a desired limitation.

Very true! Although I also like to avoid overly restricting gameplay because of real world choices. We could indeed build a bunch of "just in case we need them" satellites if we wanted too, given a big enough budget. And perhaps the GPS constellation is an example of that. Not only are there extras in space, but there's a warehouse of them waiting to be launched.

I don't want KSP to turn into "Recreate NASA - The Game", but trying to close these types of exploits in the game play are, by definition, trying to bring it back to something a little more realistic.

(I would also argue that the spare GPS (and TDRS, among others) satellites on orbit are key pieces of a "high-availability" solution rather than "just in case", but your point is well made.)

Yeah, orbital stations are a bit trickier. Do you want to force the player to build an entirely new station? Or is it okay to expand an existing one? I suppose this is where tater's idea comes into play, where some contracts naturally follow on to previous ones (and as you also stated). I actually haven't done many station/base contracts, so I'm not sure how they currently build.

I also would love to see a little bit more of "chaining" contracts together. Not only does that add a bit more continuity to the game play, but it also opens the possibility of creating some more interesting contracts for satellites. Imagine having to return to a satellite with an engineer to perform maintenance, or with a scientist to retrieve/update an on-orbit experiment. Capturing a satellite into the cargo bay of your space plane and returning it to KSC. De-orbiting a satellite that you placed in a previous contract over a specific area of the ocean... (that one might take care of re-using satellites!).

[Arsonide]

I agree with this on multiple levels. However, what about logging and tracking the vessel ID in the contract once it's complete? This would prevent a player from using that vessel to fulfill other contracts without rendering the vessel useless or removing control. It also nullifies the need to have a "launch a new craft" requirement, which is also easily circumvented anyway.

I will confess that I've mostly been looking at this from the satellite contract perspective, and it possibly overly complicates station/base contracts. I've actually not done enough fiddling with station/base contracts enough to offer how this ID tagging system could/should be adopted. Perhaps I need to do more "testing" in my own career save. I think a similar system would work, depending on how much you want to force the player to "make a new station/base" vs. expanding the existing one.

Cheers,

~Claw

We had also considered this, but decided against it as well. Consider how this information would be conveyed to the player. Cannot use station that has been used in a station contract before. That's kind of complicated. What if I can't remember which stations I've used before? Okay, so now we need HUD elements to convey that information, and at this point a simple thing becomes more complex than it needs to be.

It was definitely looked at from every angle, but ultimately we erred on the side of fun and simplicity. I am looking into some more creative solutions for this, however.

[WuphonsReach]

I think the easiest solution for sat contracts is "must maintain orbit for N days". The player still has control over the item, they just have to leave it alone for 30/60/90 days in order to fulfill the contract.

Note: That would require the contract to pay out an amount that makes it worth tying up a contract slot for N days.