Craft Construction Time

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I guess it depends on what direction the devs want to take the game. If KSP2 is going to move away from being a tycoon/management game and focus on just being a rocket building and flying simulator then you may be right that this system is overly complex and doesn't really add anything. However if the devs want to improve the management aspect of the game then time management is a huge aspect of this type of gameplay and needs to have a full suite of construction time and related features to properly flesh it out.

That's fine and all, and a fair debate to have. But you can see why that debate is outside the scope of this thread, right? I'm sure just about all of us here have a suite of mods in KSP that could be fashioned into a stock game experience and would hope the whole of the community would agree is good to add. Many of our opinions of what a good campaign conflict with one another though.

My personal stance is to keep stock as simple and bare bones as possible while including as many features as is sensible. For instance, adding life support but making it single resource and having the option to change kerbal consumption rates of that resource (down to 0 for effectively no life support needed). This would essentially make it so there would be a universal time dependent resource consumption monitor around which mods would work and would resolve several compatibility issues between resource mods. An example of the compatibility issue I'm referring to is the inability for Kerbalism to work with MKS due to (I believe) the fact that both have their own method for monitoring resource usage over time. 

All this is because I believe this game is meant to be modded and personally tailored by the audience so we can each make our own desired experience and the purpose of stock is to enhance that ability while easing new players into the game.

[Lord Aurelius]

9 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

let me put it another way, You have to go out of your way (and frankly I don't see how to do it easily) to make the current time warp not necessary. That's what I mean by inherent to THEIR (the Kerbal's) universe. That's why it's different.

One is takes work to REMOVE. The other takes work to IMPLEMENT.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at here. Are you trying to say that since the maneuver node waits are an emergent delay of the orbital mechanics the time warp is removing a problem, but in the case of construction time a new feature would need to be implemented for the timewarp to again remove?

2 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

That's fine and all, and a fair debate to have. But you can see why that debate is outside the scope of this thread, right? I'm sure just about all of us here have a suite of mods in KSP that could be fashioned into a stock game experience and would hope the whole of the community would agree is good to add. Many of our opinions of what a good campaign conflict with one another though.

My personal stance is to keep stock as simple and bare bones as possible while including as many features as is sensible. For instance, adding life support but making it single resource and having the option to change kerbal consumption rates of that resource (down to 0 for effectively no life support needed). This would essentially make it so there would be a universal time dependent resource consumption monitor around which mods would work and would resolve several compatibility issues between resource mods. An example of the compatibility issue I'm referring to is the inability for Kerbalism to work with MKS due to (I believe) the fact that both have their own method for monitoring resource usage over time. 

All this is because I believe this game is meant to be modded and personally tailored by the audience so we can each make our own desired experience and the purpose of stock is to enhance that ability while easing new players into the game.

Fair enough, for me personally I feel that time management (via life support and construction time) is a critical enough part of RL space travel that it only makes sense to implement it in the base game in some way. It doesn't need to be overly complicated, and IMHO players have enough general experience with things taking time to build in games that it wouldn't be difficult for them to grasp that a rocket takes time to build, especially if the UI clearly showed how long it would take.

[mcwaffles2003]

12 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Since supply lines and life support being "lite" (I'm reading this as "non lethal") are confirmed a construction time feature would not punish people not caring about it and just skipping to launch but it would reward people for optimizing their space programs with standardized launchers and/or reusable tech.

 

33 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 

42 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Life support (which has already pretty much been confirmed for KSP2, which is what we're talking about since this is the KSP2 section of the forum) provides even more incentive.

 

No it hasn't... We will need specific buildings to increase the population of a colony, that is all that is confirmed. There has been no mention of life support for active vessels and no greater complication implied than simply having a requisite building to increase the population of a colony. In other words, you need a greenhouse attached to your colony but no mention of tracking its food output/consumption.

 

13 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I'm thinking right now that we'll have at least a form of construction time: extraplanetary launchpads needing resources.

So a system for construction queues, delayed launches, build craft storing, modifying and recovery should already be in the game, alongside a way to "simulate" launching a new design without committing the time/resources required for an actual build.

You are asking for a bunch of features to be included as well as KCT... Not just KCT.

Sorry friend, but I have little interest in playing your playthrough, so please don't try to force your game on me.

[Superfluous J]

1 minute ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at here. Are you trying to say that since the maneuver node waits are an emergent delay of the orbital mechanics the time warp is removing a problem, but in the case of construction time a new feature would need to be implemented for the timewarp to again remove?

Yes, essentially.

Let me be 100% clear, though. I'm not against time being a factor in the game, nor am I against it being a factor in ship construction. I'm against the implementation in KCT because I didn't like it and don't want it in the stock game. I'm against any feature that is added merely to be skipped.

I would be for a system that continues time while in the VAB, perhaps even accelerated. I'd be for a system that rewards reusability, so long as that doesn't mean "SSTO or GTFO." I'd rather reward consistent design, so launching 2 of the same launcher design was rewarded as much as 2 of the same craft. I'd also be for back-dating builds so you can apply any time spent warping BEFORE building the craft, to the time it takes your Kerbals to build a craft.

But when I build a Mun mission I don't want to then have to warp 45 days before I launch it, every single time. I don't want to have to plan 8 missions ahead because of lag time in building. I want to make a rocket and fly it to a place. I LIKE that game loop. Messing with it in any way needs real solid thought put into it or it will seriously turn me off to the game.

[mcwaffles2003]

10 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Fair enough, for me personally I feel that time management (via life support and construction time) is a critical enough part of RL space travel that it only makes sense to implement it in the base game in some way. It doesn't need to be overly complicated, and IMHO players have enough general experience with things taking time to build in games that it wouldn't be difficult for them to grasp that a rocket takes time to build, especially if the UI clearly showed how long it would take.

In real life we also don't have timewarp to find a similar launch window for voyager 1 and 2. That kind of alignment wont be back for a long time. In KSP as it is that window will be back in 5 minutes of warping and as the game is I will suffer no consequence for warping to it. This game is not intended to mimic the logistics and management of RL, that's what mods are for. Please keep in mind, as easy as stock is already, most people quite before they even reach the mun... stock features adding more and more complication and wait will only make that statistic worse. Let people just build their rocket, fly it and crash it... Make that as quick and fluid as possible.

9 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

But when I build a Mun mission I don't want to then have to warp 45 days before I launch it, every single time. I don't want to have to plan 8 missions ahead because of lag time in building. I want to make a rocket and fly it to a place. I LIKE that game loop. Messing with it in any way needs real solid thought put into it or it will seriously turn me off to the game.

This

[Lord Aurelius]

8 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 

 

You are asking for a bunch of features to be included as well as KCT... Not just KCT.

Sorry friend, but I have little interest in playing your playthrough, so please don't try to force your game on me.

I'm not trying to force my game mode on anyone, and I apologize if it came across that way (plus I'm not a dev so it's literally impossible to force anyone else to play the game my way). I've merely been attempting to explain why I would like to see this sort of time management gameplay added as an option in KSP2.

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

In real life we also don't have timewarp to find a similar launch window for voyager 1 and 2. That kind of alignment wont be back for a long time. In KSP as it is that window will be back in 5 minutes of warping and as the game is I will suffer no consequence for warping to it. This game is not intended to mimic the logistics and management of RL, that's what mods are for. Please keep in mind, as easy as stock is already, most people quite before they even reach the mun... stock features adding more and more complication and wait will only make that statistic worse. Let people just build their rocket, fly it and crash it... Make that as quick and fluid as possible.

I'm all for that kind of gameplay, but I also enjoy the feel of running a space program which to me at least necessarily involves time management. Again, that's what different game modes and difficulty options are for. In terms of why I want to see it implemented in stock, there's a level of integration with other game systems and overall balance that's pretty much impossible to achieve with mods.

[KSK]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Adding "Time-management" in a game where you can just fast forward without consequence?... Of what use is that? What value does time have? Probes dont fail after x amount of time, kerbals have yet to have a maximum time to be allowed in space... waiting in this game has no downside. We can play a game and fast forward 10,000 years and it wont matter.. So please explain the value of the time you intend for us to care enough for to manage.

You're right. Time management is not a part of KSP1. So thinking in terms of KSP 1 with a few time-related features bolted on here and there (mobile lab, I'm looking at you) doesn't work.

For that reason, I would be against having construction time as an optional setting, although having a separate game mode which includes construction time and all the other features needed to make it work well, would be fine.

In my opinion, for construction time to make sense and be anything more than a nuisance or a roleplaying gimmick, it needs to come with a package of other features. Time needs to be baked into the game from the start and it needs to matter. There need to be consequences for running out of time and there need to be mechanisms for saving time in various ways. Some of those might be down to efficient gameplay and good planning, some of them might be a more immediately straightforward, such as extensions to the VAB that the player can purchase to speed up rocket building.

Now, as @Lord Aurelius points out, and I agree with him , time becomes a resource. Done properly, the player is confronted with interesting choices that affect their game. Choosing what to build and when to build it becomes a factor. Planning ahead becomes a factor. If we still have a research tree then choosing research priorities becomes a factor. Building efficient, modular rockets that don't take as long to build might become a factor, or focusing on SSTOs or reusability so that you can do more with a limited fleet of vehicles. 

If you're all about building the rockets and flying and iterating one mission at a time, then maybe none of the above looks particularly appealing. That's fair. But there are plenty of us who have been wanting a better management side to the game since Career mode first became a thing and, again I agree with @Lord Aurelius that time is a huge part of that.

[mcwaffles2003]

9 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I'm not trying to force my game mode on anyone, and I apologize if it came across that way (plus I'm not a dev so it's literally impossible to force anyone else to play the game my way). I've merely been attempting to explain why I would like to see this sort of time management gameplay added as an option in KSP2.

Wasn't aimed at you

9 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I'm all for that kind of gameplay, but I also enjoy the feel of running a space program which to me at least necessarily involves time management. Again, that's what different game modes and difficulty options are for. In terms of why I want to see it implemented in stock, there's a level of integration with other game systems and overall balance that's pretty much impossible to achieve with mods.

Hey man, I got an RP-1 playthrough rocking so I get it. I just don't see it as a good way of onboarding new players. I get that adding this feature would make landing craft more purposeful as SSTO's would have a genuine use since they would just need to be refueled and not reconstructed. But mods like RP-1 have brought this back anyways. Now if we were getting more modes than "adventure" and sandbox.... I would be on board with a more "hardcore" mode that included these kinds of mods. But as it stands my greatest concerns are enhancing mod compatibility and retaining new players so the game can continue to grow and maybe some of those new players will become new modders creating even more mods for us all to enjoy.

Edited July 7, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, KSK said:

You're right. Time management is not a part of KSP1. So thinking in terms of KSP 1 with a few time-related features bolted on here and there (mobile lab, I'm looking at you) doesn't work.

For that reason, I would be against having construction time as an optional setting, although having a separate game mode which includes construction time and all the other features needed to make it work well, would be fine.

In my opinion, for construction time to make sense and be anything more than a nuisance or a roleplaying gimmick, it needs to come with a package of other features. Time needs to be baked into the game from the start and it needs to matter. There need to be consequences for running out of time and there need to be mechanisms for saving time in various ways. Some of those might be down to efficient gameplay and good planning, some of them might be a more immediately straightforward, such as extensions to the VAB that the player can purchase to speed up rocket building.

Now, as @Lord Aurelius points out, and I agree with him , time becomes a resource. Done properly, the player is confronted with interesting choices that affect their game. Choosing what to build and when to build it becomes a factor. Planning ahead becomes a factor. If we still have a research tree then choosing research priorities becomes a factor. Building efficient, modular rockets that don't take as long to build might become a factor, or focusing on SSTOs or reusability so that you can do more with a limited fleet of vehicles. 

If you're all about building the rockets and flying and iterating one mission at a time, then maybe none of the above looks particularly appealing. That's fair. But there are plenty of us who have been wanting a better management side to the game since Career mode first became a thing and, again I agree with @Lord Aurelius that time is a huge part of that.

As a person who has played RP-1, city builders since sim city for SNES, and loves grand strategy games like total war, hearts of iron, stellaris, etc... I wholeheartedly am on board for greater management features and the like. My biggest concern remains it being off-putting to new players as KSP, as it is, is already difficult for them to pick up and stay with.

If we got more game modes than just sandbox and adventure I would be all over this as I wish I too could stock a hanger with craft making reusability in a vehicle valuable. But new players who walk into sandbox will be overwhelmed by all the parts available so the only mode for new players to really get their feet wet in will be adventure. So with that as it is I hope the stock adventure mode is ridiculously noob friendly while the rest of us go make our own playthroughs. 

If @Nate Simpson and the crew want to create more modes for us to play I am with you guys 100% for a more simulator-esque management heavy career

[KSK]

If you're worried about onboarding new players, then the KSP 2 approach sounds exactly right to me. Have the information available in-game for players to learn from, make that information relevant and useful, and make the core gameplay elements of building and flying rockets more accessible. Then you can make the rest of the game more interesting without worrying that any extra complexity will put new players off.  

It's not like having to contend with two different aspects of a game is a new thing. Think of the Total War series for example - a pretty involved real-time tactical battle game and a management and logistics game, all in one.

More accessible doesn't have to mean dumbing down either - the flight planner tool mentioned in the PC Gamer article (I think) is a great example. Rather than looking outside the game for a delta-V map (which implies first knowing that such things exist and are useful), include them in the game somehow. Better yet, include them as a display in the VAB so you have some immediate feedback on whether your current rocket design is capable of doing what you want it to do, or whether you need to iterate it. I have my personal doubts about what I've seen of KSP2 so far but that flight planner tool is not one of them.

Edit:   Purely anecdotally, I wonder how much of the difficulty in keeping new players onboard is because the game as it stands starts off being very difficult and then switches to being very boring? That was my personal experience anyway - I had a lot of fun figuring at how to play the game: how to get to space at all, how to land on the Mun, how to rendezvous and dock and use the navball, how to go interplanetary etc. But once I'd got to that point, I couldn't really muster any enthusiasm for building a differently shaped Duna lander, or going to another differently coloured ball of rock to plant the same old flag and do the same old experiments, let alone anything more complex like building a base, that's pretty much entirely ornamental.

I get that KSP is a sandbox game and it clearly has a committed long-term player base who can't get enough of it. But maybe a little more structure and a little more actual gameplay would broaden its appeal?

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by KSK

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You are asking for a bunch of features to be included as well as KCT... Not just KCT.

Sorry friend, but I have little interest in playing your playthrough, so please don't try to force your game on me.

KTC is a mod, with its own quirks and balance, I'm not talking of that I'm talking about the idea behind the mod, but, since you brought KCT in the argument, I'm gonna inform you that all of those things I listed were originally parts of the KCT mod.

They're not additional features, they are consequences and/or requirement to have construction time (the feature, not the mod).

• construction queues: You may want to build more than one thing at a time like pre-building 10 launch vehicles while integrating one of the existing ones with a mission.
• delayed launches: You may want to do something while building and not just skipping to the launch date.
• built craft storing: You may want to have more than one craft at the ready, like more copies of the same rocket or a second Space Shuttle to rescue the crew of the first one if something goes wrong.
• craft recovery and modifying: Without this any reusable tech is useless, and this is valid even without construction time, if KSP2 doesn't have this feature anything reusable will be useless in the context of colony gameplay.
• a simulation system: This is a something I think is a prerequisite for both construction time and resources to build, but I'm sure that could be disabled or limited for a more hardcore experience.

I'm not trying to force my game on anyone, I'm merely stating some of the natural things that are needed to use a construction time system, even one based on the time needed to extract resources and bring them to your colony like the one already confirmed for KSP2.

 

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

No it hasn't... We will need specific buildings to increase the population of a colony, that is all that is confirmed.

That's not the only time Nate talked about life support, but now I don't have specific quotes nor time to re-watch all of the PAX interviews.

 

 

At the cost of sounding repetitive I'm going to write another one to anyone reading (on both sides of the argument):

We'll already have a time construction system with colonies and orbital shipyards represented by the time needed to extract and bring all the required resources for a new craft to the colony.

[pandaman]

As I said in an earlier post in here, I have mixed feelings.  Which is why I started the thread.  Lots of good point made both for and against.

The idea of being able to design a vessel from scratch and launch it in what is effectively zero game time just feels a little 'wrong' somehow.  But also, to impose build times in line with RL is probably way too much from a gameplay perspective too.

It makes sense to have the design process not 'eat' into mission time, as in KSP1, as this will naturally be an ongoing process by lots of boffins in the background, which is simply abstracted in game by using the VAB in 'frozen time'.  And some form of 'background' testing / simulation process that doesn't use 'mission time' either would probably need to be part of the implementation too. 

Yes, the build time can be time warped through, but only as far as the next thing that needs attention, same as maneuver nodes or launch windows. So I don't really see that as an issue. 

Basically what I (sort of) envisaged would be that safely landed craft (on the pad or runway) can be refuelled and re-used immediately, recovered vessels would be able to be checked and refurbished fairly quickly, then either 'stored' or 'made ready'.  Those 'made ready' would occupy a pad, but can be launched at a few hours notice.  Those 'stored' would naturally need longer, as they need to be transported to the pad etc too, so maybe a few days to be launch ready.  New builds would take a relatively long time, but that could speed up with more 'copies'.  Exact times would presumably depend on size (related to part count and/or weight maybe) so small reusable craft can be turned round quickly compared larger more complex ones.

Again. Any implementation would need to be well integrated with the game mode and feel a natural part of it rather than a tacked on arbitrary delay for the sake of it. 

[mattinoz]

6 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I would be interested in a game mode or mod that allowed time to pass while in the VAB, perhaps even pass very quickly each time you attach a new part. This would need to be coupled with a ROCK SOLID Alarm Clock implementation that could find SOI changes on craft on rails and warn the player about them.

I'm not sure I'd like it or even use it much, but I'd like to try it to find out.

Agree Alarm clock important and hopefuly the new spacial graph avoids the whole changing SOI problems of the "lets move everything a tick at a time" approach.

I don't think it needs to be complex at all just have a base timefactor faster then 1 and don't stop time completely inside buildings. Let the time slip away at a resonable tick then you reward the player for getting better at the game over time. First play a new player might be ready to go to Duna when it's completely the wrong time , Second be faster all up and be ready during the trailing edge of the window. By Third play hit the start of the window.

Might be 10x or 20x and sure you'll need to slow down to 1x or less at times but that shouldn't be the norm. To me I'd go as far as gearing the physics bubbles to run 10x then slow down as required for events or to handle excessive physics load.

Edited July 8, 2020 by mattinoz

[AlamoVampire]

@Lord Aurelius

1. time in game is a resource. 
2. time to PLAY the game is a more rare and precious commodity. A more important one.
3. I am getting really tired of saying this: the ONLY way to make construction time mean ANYTHING is to FORCE US TO WAIT. Time warping past it COMPLETELY REMOVES ITS MEANING. Period. 
4. point 3 causes point 2 of my original reply. Period.

5. This feature adds NOTHING beyond irritation and contention as it clearly divides and likely can/will alienate players. I mean it. It will drive players away. I am one of them. My time means something and I will not be forced into burning it on a feature I want absolutely nothing to do with. I am certain others in my camp agree with the sentiment: It adds nothing, it is not wanted, it only means something if it cant be skipped.

i get you like it, but it just is not fun for most of us. I said it in one of my many replies: people in some cases do not have the time to waste to wait for a ship to be built after it was built in the vab. Again the suggestion of timewarp makes the feature 100% meaningless and 100% pointless and just adds more room for technical debt to be accrued. 
 

my final point:

some players like it, thats great! Others do not want it, find it distasteful that it could be forced upon us and feel its best left 100% as a mod. This also is great. I fall 100% into the latter camp. Please, lets just agree that we will not agree and leave it at that. 
 

201807072020

[Incarnation of Chaos]

There aren't many ways besides a buggy release or predatory monetization that they could get me to not buy KSP2, this? This would be another way they'd manage to forgo my purchase.

[Lord Aurelius]

1 hour ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Lord Aurelius

1. time in game is a resource. 
2. time to PLAY the game is a more rare and precious commodity. A more important one.
3. I am getting really tired of saying this: the ONLY way to make construction time mean ANYTHING is to FORCE US TO WAIT. Time warping past it COMPLETELY REMOVES ITS MEANING. Period. 
4. point 3 causes point 2 of my original reply. Period.

5. This feature adds NOTHING beyond irritation and contention as it clearly divides and likely can/will alienate players. I mean it. It will drive players away. I am one of them. My time means something and I will not be forced into burning it on a feature I want absolutely nothing to do with. I am certain others in my camp agree with the sentiment: It adds nothing, it is not wanted, it only means something if it cant be skipped.

i get you like it, but it just is not fun for most of us. I said it in one of my many replies: people in some cases do not have the time to waste to wait for a ship to be built after it was built in the vab. Again the suggestion of timewarp makes the feature 100% meaningless and 100% pointless and just adds more room for technical debt to be accrued. 
 

my final point:

some players like it, thats great! Others do not want it, find it distasteful that it could be forced upon us and feel its best left 100% as a mod. This also is great. I fall 100% into the latter camp. Please, lets just agree that we will not agree and leave it at that. 
 

201807072020

1. Yes.

2. Agreed.

3. Strongly disagree. Forcing players to wait RL time is terrible game design. Warping past it removes the RL delay, but not the in-game passage of time and its associated implications (vessel rendezvous, transfer windows, life support, etc). See several of the above comments discussing this, especially from @KSK.

4. Only if you make the assumption that any in-game time management is forced on every player and is implemented poorly such that the game is wasting your time IRL.

5. Again, see @KSK's excellent comment on this. Not everyone enjoys time management (and I absolutely agree that nobody should be forced to do it if all they want to do is fly rockets), but plenty of other players do.

My final point is that nobody is saying this should be forced on everyone. Every time I've mentioned it, it's been in the context of an optional difficulty option (although I'm inclined to agree with @KSK in that it would probably work better in its own game mode specifically designed around program management). The problem with just leaving it to a mod is that it will always be somewhat hacky and half-baked (the exact situation that would likely result in it being annoying and tedious overall), but a stock implementation would allow for much better overall integration. I can agree to disagree, we've both stated our opinions and reasons for them.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Lord Aurelius

[James M]

1 hour ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Every time I've mentioned it, it's been in the context of an optional difficulty option (although I'm inclined to agree with @KSK in that it would probably work better in its own game mode specifically designed around program management). The problem with just leaving it to a mod is that it will always be somewhat hacky and half-baked (the exact situation that would likely result in it being annoying and tedious overall), but a stock implementation would allow for much better overall integration.

Literally the solution to the entire issue. Beings as there's a divide among the player base as to what they want, it's probably best left as a difficulty option or a separate game mode. This way at least everyone gets what they want and it's a win-win. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by James M

[AlamoVampire]

@James M given the divide that seems apparent let me counter your point on it being optional being win-win.

its not. Its a win-lose-lose.

how? Win: those who want it. Happy. 

Lose: those who want it to those who dont: just turn off the option and never see it. ...that feels (if such comments happen) like hand waving dismissal of our concerns. Thats how it feels to me at the least. Not to mention the lose of customers who will reject ksp2 outright for its inclusion.

lose: given the divide, there will be a not insignificant portion of users who despite objections will still buy ksp2 out of loyalty to the title, but will turn it off. This leaves a huge section of issues in the form of technical debt bugs. It is probable that the feature will cause bugs that link back to the features code having interactions of some kind but not being diagnosed easily or reproduced easily as a result. This intern could cause more issues as incorrect fixes get patched in and technical debt increases. Rinse. Repeat. (Disclaimer not a programmer so the probability of this is unknown, but, i know enough to know it is a possibility thus warrants mention)

my solution/suggestion remains unswervingly the same: such a feature must remain the domain of mods and mods alone.

005407082020

[James M]

27 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@James M given the divide that seems apparent let me counter your point on it being optional being win-win.

its not. Its a win-lose-lose.

how? Win: those who want it. Happy. 

Lose: those who want it to those who dont: just turn off the option and never see it. ...that feels (if such comments happen) like hand waving dismissal of our concerns. Thats how it feels to me at the least. Not to mention the lose of customers who will reject ksp2 outright for its inclusion.

lose: given the divide, there will be a not insignificant portion of users who despite objections will still buy ksp2 out of loyalty to the title, but will turn it off. This leaves a huge section of issues in the form of technical debt bugs. It is probable that the feature will cause bugs that link back to the features code having interactions of some kind but not being diagnosed easily or reproduced easily as a result. This intern could cause more issues as incorrect fixes get patched in and technical debt increases. Rinse. Repeat. (Disclaimer not a programmer so the probability of this is unknown, but, i know enough to know it is a possibility thus warrants mention)

my solution/suggestion remains unswervingly the same: such a feature must remain the domain of mods and mods alone.

005407082020

And I respectfully disagree. Mods are great and all but why not give the player more control over what they want out of the stock game? Personally I dislike mods and have never used them. That's just me. I can't be asked to install something on my computer that someone else made. I'm just paranoid like that I guess  Personally I see the value in both including and not including construction times in KSP, and as such have to ask. Where's the harm in letting the player choose for themselves if that's something the devs can offer? I personally wouldn't care either way if it was in my game, but I'd rather at least have the option there for me to just click it on or off, than for me to have to go download someone else's stuff to do the same thing. (No offense to the modding community out there.) Of course the argument could be made about every mod out there and why it isn't in the stock game, but of course then that debate would never end soo... here we are. The real question is, is it worth the developer's time to make the thing in the first place? Construction timers? Eh. I'd rather them develop something else more interesting. But if they feel it's going to make the game better, then why not let them? As long as it's optional, why bother make a fuss about it? 

Furthermore, bugs are gonna happen. We don't like em. It's why they squash em. To say something shouldn't be included in a game because it could cause more bugs is just... what. why? Seriously. Nothing would ever be coded then. No game. No programs. Nothing. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by James M

[AlamoVampire]

@James M

Please, let me be clear about this. A few points below will make a singular assumption: "This feature gets added." With this assumption in mind, bear with me.

1. It is not worth them losing a good portion of customers. There are those <count me among them> that will not go near KSP 2 with construction time in it. For me, as I will not speak to others motivation for staying away beyond its inclusion: My time is precious to me. I will not fill it with a game that has a feature that, will cause issues <that I will delve into shortly>. I will not personally go near such a game that tells me that ok, so you built your craft, now, you must wait time before you can fly it. It is as if I am being told as a player that because a few wanted this feature <which again, time warping past makes it irrelevant and pointless and leads to issues with technical debt and bugs <which I will reexamine momentarily> if its turned off by some, or warped past <which makes it absolutely a nuisance and instead of adding <which it frankly does not, not for most of us at least> and instead removes game functionality.

2. 

22 minutes ago, James M said:

lose: given the divide, there will be a not insignificant portion of users who despite objections will still buy ksp2 out of loyalty to the title, but will turn it off. This leaves a huge section of issues in the form of technical debt bugs. It is probable that the feature will cause bugs that link back to the features code having interactions of some kind but not being diagnosed easily or reproduced easily as a result. This intern could cause more issues as incorrect fixes get patched in and technical debt increases. Rinse. Repeat. (Disclaimer not a programmer so the probability of this is unknown, but, i know enough to know it is a possibility thus warrants mention)

didn't feel like typing that again. sorry.

3. Bugs happen yes, but, for the love all things kerbal, given the fact people will TURN IT OFF, why add the complexity of trying to figure out that its something to do with that unwanted features code causing problems. Let us say, just for the sake of argument, I am running KSP2, I have that feature shut down. I install a mod. I suddenly experience a glitch. I go to report that glitch to the mod maker, but, when asked how to reproduce it, I give steps that, because it is turned off on MY end may in fact NOT trigger the bug for that mod maker because THEY have it ON. Then, they write a patch not knowing whats going on in FULL which is in the long run going to cause problems. How? no clue. it just can. Why on earth would you wish that complexity on others? 

I am getting tired of this debate. I accept that you and others will not see eye to eye with me on this. I accept that others will in fact see eye to eye with me on this. That is the beauty of it. We are entitled to see it how we like, discuss it as we like. But, for me, I am going to be succinct here, I am done with this. Please understand that, I really truly feel like I am repeating myself way too much here. I say again, agree to disagree. Happy trails kind sir, happy kerbaling

 

013907082020

[James M]

28 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@James M

Please, let me be clear about this. A few points below will make a singular assumption: "This feature gets added." With this assumption in mind, bear with me.

1. It is not worth them losing a good portion of customers. There are those <count me among them> that will not go near KSP 2 with construction time in it. For me, as I will not speak to others motivation for staying away beyond its inclusion: My time is precious to me. I will not fill it with a game that has a feature that, will cause issues <that I will delve into shortly>. I will not personally go near such a game that tells me that ok, so you built your craft, now, you must wait time before you can fly it. It is as if I am being told as a player that because a few wanted this feature <which again, time warping past makes it irrelevant and pointless and leads to issues with technical debt and bugs <which I will reexamine momentarily> if its turned off by some, or warped past <which makes it absolutely a nuisance and instead of adding <which it frankly does not, not for most of us at least> and instead removes game functionality.

2. 

didn't feel like typing that again. sorry.

3. Bugs happen yes, but, for the love all things kerbal, given the fact people will TURN IT OFF, why add the complexity of trying to figure out that its something to do with that unwanted features code causing problems. Let us say, just for the sake of argument, I am running KSP2, I have that feature shut down. I install a mod. I suddenly experience a glitch. I go to report that glitch to the mod maker, but, when asked how to reproduce it, I give steps that, because it is turned off on MY end may in fact NOT trigger the bug for that mod maker because THEY have it ON. Then, they write a patch not knowing whats going on in FULL which is in the long run going to cause problems. How? no clue. it just can. Why on earth would you wish that complexity on others? 

I am getting tired of this debate. I accept that you and others will not see eye to eye with me on this. I accept that others will in fact see eye to eye with me on this. That is the beauty of it. We are entitled to see it how we like, discuss it as we like. But, for me, I am going to be succinct here, I am done with this. Please understand that, I really truly feel like I am repeating myself way too much here. I say again, agree to disagree. Happy trails kind sir, happy kerbaling

 

013907082020

Sorry not done here. 

I've read quite a few of the posts here and you are clearly one of the few outright refusing to purchase the game for something as simple as the absurdity of the devs daring to include a feature in a game that very well could be optional for the reason of, "it could cause technical issues and other people might just warp past it thus making it pointless". I do not misinterpret nor disregard your opinion of the matter. There are plenty of other issues driving people to forgo buying the game. This is but one of the minor ones. Regarding each of your points there;

1) My time matters to me too. But when I eventually build up my Adventure Mode to the point I have six separate missions going on at the same time, is a construction timer going to seriously impact my experience playing the game? No. I'll just go do something else in the mean time. We won't be spending the entire game in the first phase of development of our space program. Eventually we'll move past that and we won't even regard the timers as an issue there. Sure that doesn't solve the "problem" (If that's how you choose to see it) of them being there in the first place. But this is why difficulty options are a thing. Not just in KSP either. A whole plethora of games from Doom to Minecraft have them so a player can choose how they want to experience their gameplay. Yours inevitably will be different from mine and that's OKAY. 

2) I read it the first time. I still think it's ridiculous. Don't players sometimes send devs whole game files including game settings like these to help diagnose major issues? If the devs see that each player who has the issues has this setting turned off, wouldn't it be a good indicator of the issue? Worth further investigation? Me thinks so. 

3) It's always better to have more content and more options. "Unwanted features" don't really exist. Not as far as I can tell. Someone somewhere is going to want something. It's just a matter of finding out what the majority of those people want. Unfortunately the devs are too focused developing their game right now to ask us what we do or don't want in KSP2. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by James M

[Guest]

Construction time, Life support, commnet, in-game programming, supply lines, automation, base building, planes, colonies are all empty names.

What do they mean?

Aren't they just ideas that can change the game in different ways based on how they're implemented?

What's life support? It's Kerbalism, with all its parameters and resources or it is the simplicity of Snacks? 

What's in-game programming? Should it be the only way to automate things or an easy and visual replacement for action groups?

Every one of these concepts is only that, a concept, we can't know their consequences on the game until we see how they're effectively implemented into it.

Will removing money make the progression pointless? Will adding construction time make the game tedious? Life-support? Colonies?

Let's make an example out of colonies, it's their new core feature and yet they spent more time assuring us that they won't need babysitting and that KSP 2 is not going to be "City Spaceline 2" that that they used to show us how they are actually going to work. Why? Because "space colony" is a concept that can go from "my lander can't go back, it's a colony!" to an "Oxygen not Included" level of depth and complexity.

 

So, what we're doing here?

We're speculating, we're imagining how it could be or could go if something is implemented the way we think it should be implemented, and that's why i think that comments on the line of:

 "If feature 'X' is in the game I'm not going to buy it"¹

Not only do not belong to these speculation "What if" topics, but also don't make any sense whatsoever.

You're not going to buy the game over the idea you have of how a concept could be integrated into a game? And now that you've stated it how it improves the quality of the speculation and discussion we're doing here?

 

¹ I'm not quoting anyone in particular since I've seen it multiple times in multiple speculation threads.

[AlamoVampire]

@Master39

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

If feature 'X' is in the game I'm not going to buy it"¹

Not only do not belong to these speculation "What if" topics, but also don't make any sense whatsoever.

Disagree. If we use these speculation threads to voice these sentiments and the devs read them (seems they do or nate simpson does based off his hi everybody thread) they can get a feel for our positions. Will such a thing be impactful? I hope so. So yes, us stating: put X feature in and i wont buy it/use it and the inevitable debate that makes is a good tool to gauge ideas. So yes it belongs, yes it serves purpose. Oh that quote  box below is an error that incant delete on mobile. Disregard if it vanishes on its own lol.

 

052407082020

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

[SBKerman]

I can understand not wanting construction time added out of personal preference. For me its the other way around. I really dislike how it currently works in stock and thus always play with KCT. What I don't buy is the notion that it doesn't add anything of value or that it would scare new or existing players away. Several posts in this thread have presented what I see as good arguments for things that a construction time feature would bring to the game. I won't reiterate them in detail here, but the whole concept of having to plan not only the missions themselves, but also the timing of them, is very appealing to me. I'm sure there are others who feel the same way. Now I know this too comes down to personal preference; what's appealing to me might be appaling to you. However, everyone who wants this feature included seems to agree that it should be optional or at the very least a separate game mode. This, I think, would be an acceptable compromise between those who want the feature and those who don't. Sure, anything new added to the game will inevitable cause bugs and that's a valid concern, but if we shy away from expanding the game because of that, then it will never grow at all.

Saying that it's a pointless feature if it can be skipped via time warp is true to an extent, but the same could be said for all other aspects of the game too. By using the built-in cheat menu, quicksaving and loading, or even just playing in sandbox, we can neuter just about every challenge presented to us. The question is, do we? In the end, it comes down to how dedicated we, as players, are to the way we want to play the game. I like the idea of things taking time to build and will adapt my style to that end. Having said that, I can see how construction time with no or few other parameters tied to it or affected by it could be seen as boring and a waste of time. Personally, I think that in order to really get the most out of it, other additions would have to be made as well. Things like life support, parts/craft inventories and maybe even part failures, but that is a whole other topic.

As for the idea that adding construction time would somehow cause a substantial loss of customers seems, at least to me, to be based mostly on pure speculation and possibly a hint of projection. I have a hard time seeing how new players, coming in fresh with no preconceived ideas of what KSP should be, would think of this feature as anything other than just another part of the game. If they don't like it, they will just not tick the box that activates it. The same could be argued for existing players who are not interested in this new feature. I think it's fair to assume that most of them would also leave the option off. Of course, this is now speculation on my part, but based on how past additions to the game's mechanics have panned out, I think it's a reasonable conclusion. If the option to disable construction time was not there however, then I'd be squarely on the side of those who decry it.

Ultimately, for me at least, it doesn't matter too much if construction time is added or not. I like the concept and would definitely use it, but it's not the hill I'd choose to die on. Especially since there will most likely be mods that provide the same functions and probably more. That being said, I find it slightly arrogant to say that those who really do want this feature added should instead be forced to rely on those mods (and face the problems that come with them), when the feature in question is one that should be fairly easy to implement in stock and one that would be completely optional to use.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AlamoVampire said:

So yes, us stating: put X feature in and i wont buy it/use it and the inevitable debate that makes is a good tool to gauge ideas. So yes it belongs, yes it serves purpose.

No, because "X" doesn't mean anything.

"Construction time" is a concept and there are many ways to implement it that can radically change the game in many different ways.

As an example construction time could be a vanilla KTC, a freemium MTX timer like mobile games or the resource system we already know will be on the game.

Extraplanetary launchpads needing resources to build crafts is "construction time":

- you're limited by your resource income via supply lines.

- you can upgrade you production capacity by acting on your resources collecting and transfer infrastructure.

- while you design a craft you can't immediately launch it but you have to accumulate the needed resources.

- standardized launchers and reusable tech is rewarded by the increased efficiency they bring.

 

Another example is money, if your implementation of them allows you to sell mined resources for money and Kerbals require a salary to work you've just used them to implement life support without calling it such.

And another example altogether is using mined resources directly as money, or implementing "life support" as a mere "you need X greenhouses to make the colony grow to the next level".

That's why stating that you'll not buy the game if "feature X" is in it without knowing what "feature X" is or how is implemented makes no sense.