I don't want to burst your bubble of ksp simplicity but, I think things are gonna be more complex.

[AntaresMC]

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Can you highlight where greater gameplay depth is being explained here? All I'm getting reading this is there will be a lot more resources and ISRU. None of this "enhances" gameplay, but just arbitrarily makes it more tedious. In your plan does 1 engine run multiple fuel types? 

You have added water, H2, CH4, HTP, CO2, CO, Solid Oxidizer, and "a useless, super heavy, super rare resource that gives a bit" and for what? you never explained where this enhances gameplay, it just sounds like now I will either spend most of my time setting up resource transition plants instead of building/flying rockets or I will just ignore everything here and fly rockets. This sounds, tedious and painstaking and I fail to see the reward for it..

No, sorry, I explained HORRIBLY

The gameplay deph is because you have 6 times the engines, and no logistical pain because 1 ore=> 1 fuel, no production chains (ok, the idea is kero being more complicated because its not meant to ISRU)

SolidOx is unnecesary, you say SolidFuel only and still can make the hybrid (a bit weird, but simple)

The super-rare/heavy resource isnt useful at all, is just a money reward for making bases. Its rare for obvious and heavy to not exploit. Dont spawn in Kerbin

And NO, you can build/fly rockets instead, I focused in ISRU cause it requres change in that model. But its exactly as if stock ore divided in 3 branches (1 in athmo, that its cool) totally parallel, but different new options you have. The idea is that if you do stock ISRU, but with >1 options to chose (and that can disable from the settings or dont use it at all, use just 1 type of fuel/ox).

But if you can have 6x the engines by changing a variant in the VAB (Hlox, Hhtp, Mlox, Mhtp, Klox, Khtp) with different mechanics, is just more options that you are ALLOWED, (not have) to do.

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, AntaresMC said:

But if you can have 6x the engines by changing a variant in the VAB (Hlox, Hhtp, Mlox, Mhtp, Klox, Khtp) with different mechanics, is just more options that you are ALLOWED, (not have) to do.

Ok, I get this now, but this comes to the crux of my perspective. Instead of adding all these fuel types, why not just take all the differences in performance and tie that to the engines while compiling all fuel types into one universal fuel? You get the same gameplay but with less complications.

[AntaresMC]

12 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Ok, I get this now, but this comes to the crux of my perspective. Instead of adding all these fuel types, why not just take all the differences in performance and tie that to the engines while compiling all fuel types into one universal fuel? You get the same gameplay but with less complications.

Yea, but lose the ISRU variety, that many people would enjoy and most differences arent just perfomance. For example, you have (or not) to bring electric charge, mass ratios vary, densities vary and even tricks like the HTP as monoprop dissapear. Yea, may work fine, but lose some small details that are cool and dont make any bad, as you can just use another fuel. Also, whats the problem in having differen names if dont do nothig bu explain why the fuel behaves differently? If its different, dont matter much how its called, but no one seems bad an explaination.

In fact, I can give you an example:SSTOs, specially long range ones.

Yo have LF for everything, an Ox, for afterburns, when need thust. And 2 fuels gives a lot to play! Now imagine 9 (6+3LF only)

Edited May 21, 2020 by AntaresMC

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You say this but still haven't explained how splitting up fuels enhances the gameplay anymore than having all the fuels combined and having engine performance tied to the engines. Complexity is being added for no reward beyond complicating the titles of the fuel tanks and making logistics later in the game more arduous. 

His example (and it was a randomly chosen, easy-to-explain example, not necessarily a suggestion) was two fuels, one of which performed better, the other of which had better ISRU capability.  So in gameplay you have the choice: better ISP/thrust with a more complex logistics chain (which basically goes back to Kerbin or some highly developed world), or a simpler logistics chain that you can drop a couple of parts on a planet for, but you trade off engine performance.

 

That's a good differentiator.  On your first trip to Duna, do you want to be able to refuel there, or do you want to bring all your fuel with you?  How about on your second, or your tenth?  Maybe you want to ship your good fuel around using the mined fuel, using the good fuel for specific roles, but using the other for the majority of the dV.  Maybe you want to ship the mining equipment with the good fuel, even though it can't refuel itself, and then just leave that in place, and send your Kerbals later with engines tuned for the other fuel.  Maybe you want to pause your exploration long enough to develop the entire ISRU chain (which I'll note he didn't mention - I'm adding it as with larger colonies and more solar systems it would make sense) for the good fuel on Minmus first, before heading out further.

It at least isn't just the engines are different - the fuel being different makes a difference to the game, and there are good reasons to chose each, assuming they're balanced properly.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

 

You say this but still haven't explained how splitting up fuels enhances the gameplay anymore than having all the fuels combined and having engine performance tied to the engines. Complexity is being added for no reward beyond complicating the titles of the fuel tanks and making logistics later in the game more arduous. 

Then I made the wrong example, my fault, next time I'll use another game altogether to make examples so I don't step over some random argument.

[mattinoz]

52 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You say this but still haven't explained how splitting up fuels enhances the gameplay anymore than having all the fuels combined and having engine performance tied to the engines. Complexity is being added for no reward beyond complicating the titles of the fuel tanks and making logistics later in the game more arduous. 

To me it's not the fuels themselves but the splitting performance between engine and fuel that is the important thing. Adding an extra option for fuel selection frees Engines selection to be just about situation bell shape and such. 

This breaks down the rocket design learning curve into more logically steps. Then builds on those steps without reversion to be more efficient. Basic rocket control with solids -> staging adds first liquid fuels -> getting suborbital adds bell shape selected -> then fuel selection gets payload value -> turbopumps brings in landing on other bodies -> on wards and upwards.

Adding something like the seadragon pressure feed engine with a sea launch and reuseablity by producing own fuel from seawater introduces resource collections on-world before taking it off-world. and so on and so on....

Fun challenges that open up options that can be returned to to suit a particular moment in the players growth to me is the gameplay advantage.

Plus it leads to more logic the player has to use to divide parts up in the browser. Instead of just one big group of things that go boom they could be divided into situation or features, filtered by fuels they can use.... So as I unlock engines I understand how to use them because they are next to the other vacuum engines or a sea level engine or in between hey that might be an upperstage sub-orbital engine.

By having it all lumped into the engine specs the game currently feels arbitrary at times confusing and a little arcane at others. A logic to overlay and sort that out would be choice.

Add the bonus that is game does add these things as targetable extractions of the larger problem as mod interfaces. Mods then only need to tweak one part of the whole without having to first create a replacement to the whole.

Would say the same with Life support, the complexity doesn't just add to the challenge but in many ways breaks it up in to smaller steps that could be bypassed with experience but lead the inexperience further in to the game.

[AntaresMC]

13 hours ago, mattinoz said:

To me it's not the fuels themselves but the splitting performance between engine and fuel that is the important thing. Adding an extra option for fuel selection frees Engines selection to be just about situation bell shape and such. 

This breaks down the rocket design learning curve into more logically steps. Then builds on those steps without reversion to be more efficient. Basic rocket control with solids -> staging adds first liquid fuels -> getting suborbital adds bell shape selected -> then fuel selection gets payload value -> turbopumps brings in landing on other bodies -> on wards and upwards.

Adding something like the seadragon pressure feed engine with a sea launch and reuseablity by producing own fuel from seawater introduces resource collections on-world before taking it off-world. and so on and so on....

Fun challenges that open up options that can be returned to to suit a particular moment in the players growth to me is the gameplay advantage.

Plus it leads to more logic the player has to use to divide parts up in the browser. Instead of just one big group of things that go boom they could be divided into situation or features, filtered by fuels they can use.... So as I unlock engines I understand how to use them because they are next to the other vacuum engines or a sea level engine or in between hey that might be an upperstage sub-orbital engine.

By having it all lumped into the engine specs the game currently feels arbitrary at times confusing and a little arcane at others. A logic to overlay and sort that out would be choice.

Add the bonus that is game does add these things as targetable extractions of the larger problem as mod interfaces. Mods then only need to tweak one part of the whole without having to first create a replacement to the whole.

Would say the same with Life support, the complexity doesn't just add to the challenge but in many ways breaks it up in to smaller steps that could be bypassed with experience but lead the inexperience further in to the game.

Yea, but new fuels aint just new thrust/isp balance, its a tank balance, you not only change the power/efficiency of the rocket but how behaves. For example, lets say a cryo fuel where you forgot to put batteries. The rocket is afraid of the dark! Or different bodies that have different resources so encourage using one or another. That cant be done just with engines

Also, isnt just new names to the fuels (LiquidFuel can be TheFuelThatUsesThatEngine), if you  can swap fuels (say they maintain nozzle/chasing but change the inside) you have 6x new engines, not just a more clasifiable version.

Edited May 21, 2020 by AntaresMC

[mattinoz]

10 hours ago, AntaresMC said:

Yea, but new fuels aint just new thrust/isp balance, its a tank balance, you not only change the power/efficiency of the rocket but how behaves. For example, lets say a cryo fuel where you forgot to put batteries. The rocket is afraid of the dark! Or different bodies that have different resources so encourage using one or another. That cant be done just with engines

Also, isnt just new names to the fuels (LiquidFuel can be TheFuelThatUsesThatEngine), if you  can swap fuels (say they maintain nozzle/chasing but change the inside) you have 6x new engines, not just a more clasifiable version.

Cryo wouldn't be the first fuel the player gets to use would it?

The player has a bit of training and is building more sophisticated craft, dealing with more challenges  and risking more failure before that get to use it. Also hopefully fingers crossed the system is better all round at dealing with help the player use what they already know. Like sub-assemblies gets a solid upgrade so once I get it right I come back and just re-use and tweak, tweak and reuse again and again. Also starting a game more experienced players can have the option to start higher up the curve.

So that leaves 2 options:-

A) let them fail and learn ie The Kerbal Way.

B) design an abstraction that is simplified (also oddly the Kerbal Way)

In B Fuel selection might be by Tanks having a select-able or tweak-able variation that takes care of the issues noted and that becomes part of the expression of the tank. So Cryo would have a built in battery with green light, tanks in zero G might carry monoprop Ulrich motors that auto fire when asked for fuel. These sort of layers give the game liveliness and lead to the player discovering stuff.

When they discover it then they can design it in to the craft themselves and risk being in A group but get a system weight saving or more fuel. Using a simple tank variation and unifying the battery and fuel settling under their own command. Knowing they might miss a burn window if they don't allow for it. The UI could be really simple in that tank fullness indicator might change from solid bar to a spots floating in the bar. Again this could just be something to lead the player to discovery not a punishment.

That sets the game up for Expansion or Mods to go anywhere up to full nuts realistic with cameras in tanks and engines that never fire again if they don't take care of business before a burn.

To me the how point of extra layers is to allow the player to get higher knowledge on a flatter curve.

[AntaresMC]

17 hours ago, mattinoz said:

Cryo wouldn't be the first fuel the player gets to use would it?

The player has a bit of training and is building more sophisticated craft, dealing with more challenges  and risking more failure before that get to use it. Also hopefully fingers crossed the system is better all round at dealing with help the player use what they already know. Like sub-assemblies gets a solid upgrade so once I get it right I come back and just re-use and tweak, tweak and reuse again and again. Also starting a game more experienced players can have the option to start higher up the curve.

So that leaves 2 options:-

A) let them fail and learn ie The Kerbal Way.

B) design an abstraction that is simplified (also oddly the Kerbal Way)

In B Fuel selection might be by Tanks having a select-able or tweak-able variation that takes care of the issues noted and that becomes part of the expression of the tank. So Cryo would have a built in battery with green light, tanks in zero G might carry monoprop Ulrich motors that auto fire when asked for fuel. These sort of layers give the game liveliness and lead to the player discovering stuff.

When they discover it then they can design it in to the craft themselves and risk being in A group but get a system weight saving or more fuel. Using a simple tank variation and unifying the battery and fuel settling under their own command. Knowing they might miss a burn window if they don't allow for it. The UI could be really simple in that tank fullness indicator might change from solid bar to a spots floating in the bar. Again this could just be something to lead the player to discovery not a punishment.

That sets the game up for Expansion or Mods to go anywhere up to full nuts realistic with cameras in tanks and engines that never fire again if they don't take care of business before a burn.

To me the how point of extra layers is to allow the player to get higher knowledge on a flatter curve.

NO, have you seen my proposal?

A GIANT post in page 3. And obviously the easier fuels come earlier

the plan was start with Kero/HTP, later have Metha/LOx, and las H2 since its the most awfully inconvenient, and you wont need it early as you wont do ISRU nor need high Isp, not very realistic, but RO is gor something, and realism is somethig of all or little, mid points are just useless inconvenience. 

Also I correct myself as I had and idea for kero ISRU.  (kerbals give waste even if life support disabled) Waste+water+ore=HeavyHidrocarbons. If added Carbon Oxides gives twice and LOx

And discovered that HTP is denser than lOx, so why not?

 

Edit (misunderstood you): the idea is not to add difficulty but deph, you have effectively more engines if you can have more fuels, that lead to more to choose. 1st KeroHTP, as regular LFO, to other combinations better but more complex (CH4, H2 O2 and combinations)

Edited May 22, 2020 by AntaresMC