Progressive contracts

[Bobe]

So the career mode as of 0.90 is fairly decent. However, I can't help but feel the contracts are somewhat meaningless in the whole scope of the game. Why have I sent a dozen space stations out into solar orbit? Why am I deploying several small "stations" in LKO? Why am I building a 20 Kerbal outpost on Minmus before I even have a proper space station around Kerbin?

I feel that many of the contracts don't justify any sort of sensible progression in a space company. Of course early on you're doing a lot of testing and science experiments, but you get to a point where you're just deploying endless satellites, stations and outposts.

Rather than the same sort of contracts being randomly generated, why not be able to select long term contracts? So for example, you do enough small contracts such as testing, science experiments and satellite deployments to raise your reputation. Once you have achieved a high enough reputation, you are presented with a major contract, the first probably being to construct a space station around Kerbin. To qualify it as a proper station and not just two Hitchhiker containers taped together, there would need to be extra requirements such as electrical storage and power generation (values, not capabilities).

Once that contract has been completed, the station then becomes a permanent "target" for future contracts, such as adding a module or swapping out crew.

[CaptainKipard]

Sounds good. This should be easier to do when all the parts are finished, and the game is balanced. The contracts should allow you to create a story, rather than feel like just a bunch of unrelated tasks.

[tater]

I agree, the new contracts are mostly just more of the same, emphasis on the more part. Not only should they be progressive in some way, they should have internal steps that have an order.

Ie: survey a certain area, which then marks areas of interest to get samples, etc. These would be counted up, and after a few are completed, you might then get a contract for more samples in one of the previous areas surveyed… THEN you get a contract to build a base in that area. In the base building series, the contract designer would obviously need to make such areas at least viable base locations (a flat spot to land a few km wide).

Different companies might have different goals along those lines, so you'd end up with different progressions with different contract writers.

Generally, I think the game should have a broad choice, right at the start of the game. One would be to be the "space program" (NASA/ESA), the other would be to be a private company (Orbital Sciences, SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc). The first choice might present you with a budget, though the current game is so time accelerated this would not work terribly well (you'd get a year's budget and do 10 years worth of launches in 2 months). In the KASA version I suppose substantial money could be awarded in advance by contract, but the contracts would be called "missions," and they would be "Achieve Orbital Spaceflight," "Explore the Mun," "Send a lander probe to Duna," etc. Some of the survey stuff would also be there, but maybe a different progression. The KASA version might force you to use stuff you might not want to, as well. You have to use brand X engines (because the CEO gave money to someone in government, or the factories are in the right congressional districts ).

[Bill Phil]

Maybe reputation could determine your budget, and then missions can either increase or decrease your rep, which then changes your budget. If you fail a mission you lose rep, and you lose money. The higher the prestige of the mission ( Cassini like missions, landing, etc.) the higher the stakes.

[Renegrade]

So the career mode as of 0.90 is fairly decent. However, I can't help but feel the contracts are somewhat meaningless in the whole scope of the game. Why have I sent a dozen space stations out into solar orbit? Why am I deploying several small "stations" in LKO? Why am I building a 20 Kerbal outpost on Minmus before I even have a proper space station around Kerbin?

Yeah, I'd definitely like to see more of a progressive, persistent story unfold than the randomness we get now.

The "Explore <body x>" contracts seemed like a good start, but it quickly dissolves into just randomy missions after those.

[StrandedonEarth]

It would be more realistic if new engines had to be ground-tested then space tested to flesh out the performance characteristics. Also if planets and moons had to at least have a flyby to determine their gravity and atmospheric properties, for mods like Trajectories to have something to work with

[tater]

Yeah, what is needed is less "science as points," and more "science tells me information so I can do more interesting stuff."

The bones is there with the skill system, and facilities affecting astronauts (upgrade for EVA), actually. Anyone can look up data on wiki, so there is little "fog if war" in KSP, but some stuff couple simply be disallowed (or made less rewarding) without doing things in the right order.

You don't get the points to land on the Mun until you survey landing areas FIRST. There could be some contracts for probes that come before the "Explore X" contracts… and the latter only appear after the former is complete. So there is an earlier "send a probe to Duna" mission, that has milestones that need to be accomplished before the "Explore Duna" mission pops up.

[mattinoz]

Would be good if Satellite contracts were also progressive.

Once you have one Sat in orbit the same company could offer contracts to put more sats in to the same orbit equally spaced.

Have agree it seems like a lack of parts as well for Satellites and stations seeming very useless once there.

[Renegrade]

It would be more realistic if new engines had to be ground-tested then space tested to flesh out the performance characteristics. Also if planets and moons had to at least have a flyby to determine their gravity and atmospheric properties, for mods like Trajectories to have something to work with

Making the part testing contracts multiple stages like the survey contracts would fit that first bit well, I'd say.

You don't get the points to land on the Mun until you survey landing areas FIRST. There could be some contracts for probes that come before the "Explore X" contracts… and the latter only appear after the former is complete. So there is an earlier "send a probe to Duna" mission, that has milestones that need to be accomplished before the "Explore Duna" mission pops up.

Exactly! That would be neat. Survey Duna Landing Sites -> Manned Landing Duna -> Plant Flag on Duna -> ground/space stations, etc.

[tater]

I put this in the intuitive tech tree thread, and someone thought it was OT, but it seems more on topic here:

An alternate paradigm:

Example of play:

1. You take the "Explore the Mun" Contract. (you just did a "Get to Orbit" contract).

2. Go to the research facility, and pick the parts you think you want to complete that mission that you do not already have in your VAB. These would have a cost in funds, not science, and you are unlocking them for a contract, so they have a provisional marker of some kind for this process.

3. New "contracts" are now automatically generated (and accepted) for fully unlocking those parts. For example, in your upcoming Mun mission, you want the Mk1-2 pod, the Mk1 Landercan, the X200, Clamp-o-tron, and RCS parts. The test contracts might include "Test the Mk1-2 by reentering Kerbin atmosphere at 2200+ m/s after putting it in orbit." The clamp-o-tron might require a docking test (put 2 in orbit, and dock). The landercan might require landing a probe on the Mun (testing dust, yada, yada, yada). RCS might also require a docking event (could be done in 1 mission with the clamp-o-tron). After testing, THEN you buy the parts, and complete the "real" contract (which only becomes fully active after your parts are tested/unlocked.

This would allow the player to drive his program from day one. There might be "build an SSTO spaceplane" contract, which then sets you on a path to test the various required parts, so you can build the plane and go...

It could mitigate the requirement to "grind" science to get tech so you can do missions you want to do. This would have the player pick the missions, then work on the intermediate steps to get the tech to do the mission they want to do. The steps would be much the same, but it would have an intuitive path you'd be following.

Why am I doing orbital missions that are just docking tests, and testing parachutes? Because I am testing spacecraft for getting to Duna, and chutes to land there...

Science then is not a currency for parts (some science spending might be part of it, though). Science could perhaps be the currency you use to buy contracts. Since science is mostly planetary, your expertise convinces investigators to want your program to run their science missions to more distant (expensive) worlds.

Edited January 11, 2015 by tater

[Myslius]

I would suggest 3 things:

1) No repeatable contracts at all. (because it's grinding and it isn't fun)

2) Contracts give no science (you can earn all the science from contracts now, which makes no sense. The science should be collectable only from science instruments)

3) Need alternative way to earn money in the late game, when all contracts are over. I recommend asteroid/planets mining.

[Slam_Jones]

Kerbal Progressive Contract Ideas

I've been thinking of a few contract types that have some sort of progression required. These are just rough ideas for now, don't be too harsh on me

Prototype Contracts:

Progression:

Design a new [atmospheric/orbital/interplanetary] ship, capable of carrying [x] Kerbals, and with at least [y] delta-V.

Craft may be required to contain certain parts. (Science lab, wheels, etc)

Craft may or may not have a maximum funds cost. (Not to exceed 200,000 funds, for example)

Perform a test [flight/orbit] and return to KSC with no craft damage.

Deliver prototype to specific location with no craft damage.

Examples:

"Kerboderbodyne needs a new commercial airliner designed. They need an atmospheric jet, capable of carrying 20 Kerbals at an altitude of 17,500, which has a minimum dV of 3k/m at takeoff."

"Jeb's Supply Center needs a new cargo truck designed. It needs to be on wheels, capable of carrying 2 tons of dead weight, and can drive safely on flat ground at 20m/s."

"Bob's Science Division needs a new orbiting science station. It needs to have a capacity of at least 5 Kerbals, contain a functioning Science Lab, capable of reaching a stable LKO orbit, and cannot exceed 200,000 funds at launch."

"Mr. Popper's Penguins need an SSTO. The only requirements is that it must be able to take a Kerbal to a stable orbit and return without dropping any stages."

VIP Contracts: [bonus conditions for bonus rewards]

*A VIP is a Kerbal that is visiting your Space Program. They will take up a seat, and life support, but will not be able to steer vessels, perform repairs, perform science, etc etc. To complete these points, you must have both a Kerbonaut and your VIP present.

*The first part is the required bits, [the stuff in brackets nets you extra rewards.]

*Losing your VIP results in all pending rewards being lost, as well as a major reduction to your rep.

Progression:

VIP arrives. [ship is already on launch pad/runway]

Takeoff. [Not exceed __ g's]

Visit existing station, base, or celestial body.

Remain for [x] hours/days. [biomes visited]

Possible additional requirements:

"Roam the surface in a rover for at least 1km."

"Perform a low pass [over certain location]."

"View the sunrise/planetrise/etc [at certain location]

Return safely to KSC. [Not exceed __ g's]

Edited January 13, 2015 by Slam_Jones
Formatting and spelling

[Empiro]

I agree with progressive contracts that take you logically from one place to another. For example -- orbiting the Mun to landing, to manned landing and so forth.

For base construction, missions should involve rover surveys, manned surveys, and finally picking a great spot to land a base.

The one thing is that the game should track achievements so that advanced players can skip ahead, for example, by landing on the Mun directly in the first mission.

Finally, I actually think that most science should come from contracts, instead of the other way around. One thing is to make those science contracts non-repeating and not grindy. The reason is that I think science is way too tedious and boring already -- click a bunch of times, land in a new biome, click a bunch more times. Instead, contracts should provide you science, but require you to land in specific biomes. That way, biomes add to the gameplay challenge, but it doesn't encourage you to just biome hop.

[tater]

I would like to see the "strategies" office actually include broad mission strategy for the program, then have the contracts a little more tuned to that.

For example, you can pick from a few choices (or default to none and it is like it is now) like:

Choose the overriding X-year of your space program:

1. Pure science. (Planetary exploration, space exploration, via probes, manned missions, etc)

2. Orbital presence. (stations, etc)

3. Private launch company. (satellite launches, other people's probes, stations, etc).

4. Mun/Minmus bases.

5. Duna exploration and habitation.

6. Others that I can't think of right now.

So you'd pick one, then the contracts become more narrowed, in a way that presents you with appropriate tech to progress through (contracts can give you tech before it is unlocked, after all. For a starting game, some might be greyed out. You must do 1, 2, or 3 complete to some level, then you can switch to 4+, for example. Contracts would appear in such a way, and with useful tech to complete them. Manned Duna might include testing nuke engines, for example.

[tater]

Finally, I actually think that most science should come from contracts, instead of the other way around. One thing is to make those science contracts non-repeating and not grindy. The reason is that I think science is way too tedious and boring already -- click a bunch of times, land in a new biome, click a bunch more times. Instead, contracts should provide you science, but require you to land in specific biomes. That way, biomes add to the gameplay challenge, but it doesn't encourage you to just biome hop.

I am actually thinking this more and more. As long as "science" is lumped together to give nothing but points, the only way to make it seem like you are doing something is to tell the player the story.

1. Massively drop all the no-contract science rewards. Keep them, but make them much smaller in magnitude. That munar soil sample? Not 120 points, maybe 12 instead. Scientists can still up them, and if the base reward was lower, then the science skill could simply be a multiplier. Skill 5 scientist gets 60 instead of 12, 4 gets 48, etc.

2. Science contracts would be done as progressives that make sense. These would have the large rewards in terms of science. Many would also unlock parts like test contracts. If the contract is to do a visual ID, which sets a spot for EVA and sample return, which then opens a couple landing spots to take seismic data in a new mission (samples have to be returned to set off last phase), it gives you the seismometer to do so. You get the idea, many of these get created.

[Myslius]

to #1: So you would rather do contracts than do it all by yourself? I don't see how some commercial contracts could drive the space program. It doesn't work that way in the real life. I would rather direct the whole space program myself. It was more fun to do science in old days. We wouldn't have this whole discussion if it worked now. In old days you just go to the unknown and explore, not just do some contract and get some fixed amount of science. I'm completely against that. Contracts should give no science.

[Pthigrivi]

Theres a tough balance to be struck allowing people to adopt a wide variety of playstyles and offering enough structure to keep the game focused. Its also going to be hard to keep both new and veteran players happy. I tend to think a good way to think about balance is that running 3 of any one type of flight should earn enough money and science to get you to the next type of flight. After 3 suborbital flights you have the parts for an orbital flight, after 3 orbital flights you have what you need for a Mun or Minmus mission. After 3 missions to each of those and 3 flights in the atmosphere and maybe building an orbital space station you should have what you need to get to Dres or Duna. Honestly, given how few players even get to this point I think an experienced player should be close to maxing out the current tech tree on normal after their first interplanetary mission. Whether science rewards are a product of conducting science or as contract rewards (I think they should be both) they should just generally pace with monetary rewards and building upgrades to make this possible.

I think freedom of design and exploration is the real hidden beauty of this game. Locking things into a set progression would be a huge mistake in my opinion, as would dictating play styles. I think its okay if science contracts give a bonus on top of the the gathered science so long as the totals worked out, but I agree that the contract should direct you to an unexplored biome rather than an arbitrary location. This would make it easier to make efficient missions dovetailing multiple contracts and gathering new science together.

Id further suggest people try to think a bit differently about the tech tree in general. The point and fun of the game is to build things and fly them. Unlocking the tech tree is a means to this end, not the point of the game. It serves as a reward system for exploration, yes, but mainly it's to simplify things for new entrants and make the game manageable at the early levels. This means unlocking everything needn't be unnecessarily difficult, as its just the first step in setting up a real interplanetary network and building bigger and crazier new things.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

to #1: So you would rather do contracts than do it all by yourself? I don't see how some commercial contracts could drive the space program. It doesn't work that way in the real life. I would rather direct the whole space program myself. It was more fun to do science in old days. We wouldn't have this whole discussion if it worked now. In old days you just go to the unknown and explore, not just do some contract and get some fixed amount of science. I'm completely against that. Contracts should give no science.

"Contract" is just a word. Relabel many as "Mission Ideas" with YOUR flag as the company logo.

You are not "accepting" them from a 3d party, your space guys are sitting at the conference table at KSC spitballing ideas, and the one you "accept" is the mission you picked. Those labeled "contract would then be just parts testing, satellites, the odd 3d party space station, etc.

Right now "Mission Control" for some inexplicable reason gives you "contracts."

Really, "Tracking" should be Mission Control.

So let's do that, relabel Tracking as "Mission Control and Tracking."

Take "Mission Control," and relabel THAT to "Mission Planning Office." Got it? Now, instead of "Contracts," it now presents you with both 3d party contracts (just as a telecom might hire a rocket launch for their payload), as well as internal planning ideas from your own mission planning people (Gene, etc?). These missions would have science and rep rewards, and no funds rewards, although they would have funds up front, and possibly any needed tech as experimental parts to test. Failure in those missions would result in lower expectation missions being offered next cycle perhaps.

Some of the science missions would be very broad. "Explore the Mun," "Probe to Jool," etc. There would be a wide selection. The point is to make actually doing the science more than getting to the SoI and hitting "crew report." If you were really tasked to get rock samples, the geologists would be telling you where to get them. Mission planners pore over maps to find just the right spot to maximize their few kg of rocks.

Example:

Go to Mission Planning Office earning in your career:

1.There is a parts testing contract for a rocket engine company that wants (yet again) some really absurd test done on their new motor.

2. There are 2 contracts to place various satellites (I'd have their payloads added to the VAB as a subassembly (no cost to you, it's "blue" like testing contracts)), your job is to put it someplace, then it ceases to be yours).

Your planning guys have been brainstorming and have the following ideas:

3. Munar science. This mission plan includes a budget (funds up front as many contracts have) as well as a few parts and wants science from around the mun, including a few specific areas they want observed from fairly low altitude. Assuming this is successful, they'd like to attempt a landing at one of the sites observed, and EVA/surface collection done."

4. Orbital Science. Again, a budget, and a few parts offered. The lads sat up over too much coffee and decided that if they could put a few guys in a can, and leave them in orbit for a while, they could determine how long it took for them to go completely nuts. The mission requires (and supplies like a part testing contract) the hitchhiker and a clamp-o-tron, with the idea of putting a small station aloft, and the experiment is over and science gained after XX days on orbit.

5. (these are based on progress, so they might vary based on total science you've gained) Minmus science. Lower budget, just wants some preliminary orbital data for now.

6. Duna… same deal, but less of a budget until you have more science, or a launch window is coming, then you get the full-Monty Duna mission ideas (from exploration to trial habitation, etc).

You can always do whatever you like as well, you'll just get a less science than now---with a science astronaut, you'd get 1/2 of what it is now, but seriously, who is not swimming in science by day 60 anyway?