rockets taking time/money to design.

[jastrone]

i think it would be very interesting having to have rockets be designed for multiple tasks and changing payloads. this would make for more realism. this would also feel more like a space program and not just sending rockets to different places. it would also make overengineered rockets more usable.  and i think it really fits with the colonys and that they would make you able to mass produce rockets.

[Guest]

Maybe some sort of incentive instead of an hard block or mandatory mechanic, making standardized rockets cheaper (in resources/time/money depending on which of those we'll get) while still balancing the game around the "normal" way of having a custom rocket for every mission.

[The Aziz]

We're going to have editable workspaces instead of old craft files, so we can have like one main rocket and 5 different versions of it for different purposes, all in one file. 

Just like, say, Atlas V, you'd think it's one rocket, a standard, but it has like 20 different versions, with or without boosters, with different second stage etc.

 

[Dientus]

Interesting, go on the premise that the cost of the vehicle you are building takes into account designtime and first time die/factory creation as well as first run engine and/or tank production?

 

This way once the initial cost of Kerbolinger 1 is made, subsequent designs are cheaper to launch as a whole. Plus reuse of main rocket elements could potentially be cheaper as well for a completely different probe.

 

I like it, if done right, this would be especially helpful when the money starts drying up!

 

[PlutoISaPlanet]

I am not realy in favor of something like this.

[mattinoz]

You could just have time pass at real time while in the VBA instead of stopping like does now. that would value reuse of design and preparing things during downtime without being a hard block just a somewhat expected behaviour.  If you want to ramp up the pressure as time each time the level increase the time in the building runs faster.

They could also have a second VAB/SPH as a payload building that loads an existing craft in storage such as a Spaceplane sitting on runway and only lets you use open nodes of the craft (+plus refuel). Say as the building level up creates a new building on a new pad and the old levels of SPH hangers stays around as minor new functions within the facilities.

[pandaman]

Somethings like this would make sense IMO.  Toggleable maybe too.

It would need some form of 'storage' for already built craft, so the only waiting time would be to get them on the pad and fuelled up etc.

[K^2]

27 minutes ago, pandaman said:

It would need some form of 'storage' for already built craft, so the only waiting time would be to get them on the pad and fuelled up etc.

Part of the problem is that I might not know what I'll need to launch in advance. Usually, in KSP, I can just open up editor, delete the top part of the rocket, and build the payload I need, then snap the rest of the rocket back on. In order to have pre-built rockets that took up construction time, you would really have to re-think how we design, build, and deploy rockets. I think that's a little too much.

We are going to have supply routes. Maybe complexity of the rocket you assign to a route can influence how often a launch can take place, because it would take time to build that rocket. That'd be a neat little mechanic. But I'm not convinced it fits core gameplay.

[Empiro]

I like Kerbal Construction Time a lot, but I definitely think it should be kept as a mod rather than something standard. You want players to be able to experiment and tweak things quickly. For new players, they're going to have a lot of failed rockets and launches.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Empiro said:

You want players to be able to experiment and tweak things quickly. For new players, they're going to have a lot of failed rockets and launches.

If I don't remember wrongly Nate mentioned something about some sort of sandbox/simulation to test colony ship designs (something on which trial and error with "real" parts could cost a lot of time and resources) during the podcast interview.

Also new players usually start from simpler and easier to build rockets, if they balance the thing in the right way you can have construction time start as negligible and scale up as quickly as they want to make it a "problem" at the right time during gameplay progression.

I can see it becoming an engaging gameplay element right after the firsts monolithic Mun / Duna apollo style missions, when you're starting to plan longer voyages and more permanent outposts and bases.

That's not to say that I want it in game, just that it can be balanced to be a fun constrain to play with.

 

On the other hand the confirmation that you'll be able to at least recover some of the resources from crafts near colonies will already rewards players that take that into account with their supply route ship designs.

[mattinoz]

1 hour ago, Empiro said:

I like Kerbal Construction Time a lot, but I definitely think it should be kept as a mod rather than something standard. You want players to be able to experiment and tweak things quickly. For new players, they're going to have a lot of failed rockets and launches.

Doesn't revert handle that already, with the option to have no revert but by the time you switch that on the challenge yourself you'd have a bit of experience with the system generally.  So I think they should not hold back using an obvious and expected constrains to still add some pressure. The early game is hardly a high pressure environment and you often find starting a new game you can unlock enough parts then find yourself warping to a interplanetary window. More players might go further a field if the pacing was more natural.

If colonies are going to work on the concept of parts produced by mining and conversion then there will be some time constraint that will need to be dealt with at some point, might as introduce them softly at KSP.

 

[pandaman]

17 hours ago, K^2 said:

Part of the problem is that I might not know what I'll need to launch in advance. Usually, in KSP, I can just open up editor, delete the top part of the rocket, and build the payload I need, then snap the rest of the rocket back on. In order to have pre-built rockets that took up construction time, you would really have to re-think how we design, build, and deploy rockets. I think that's a little too much.

We are going to have supply routes. Maybe complexity of the rocket you assign to a route can influence how often a launch can take place, because it would take time to build that rocket. That'd be a neat little mechanic. But I'm not convinced it fits core gameplay.

My immediate thought was for having a rescue vessel 'ready' either on a pad so it just needs fuel and crew, or nearby so it can be ready fairly quickly, or maybe a 'standard' lifter (starship/falcon-esque) where the ship is built, but it just needs payload and fuel, and crew if required.

Both of these scenarios  would be relatively quick to get ready, hours or days.  Whereas building a new copy of an existing design takes longer. And a new design longer still.  All relative to size and complexity of course.

[B.Riches2500]

On 3/9/2021 at 12:37 PM, jastrone said:

i think it would be very interesting having to have rockets be designed for multiple tasks and changing payloads. this would make for more realism. this would also feel more like a space program and not just sending rockets to different places. it would also make overengineered rockets more usable.  and i think it really fits with the colonys and that they would make you able to mass produce rockets.

Perhaps this could be an enhanced version of career mode, where there is some incentive to do this (perhaps each time you design a brand new rocket, it uses a lot of funds. Like engineer wages and materials cost for example). That way there is a reason for you to have a standard rocket and design your payload around the rocket instead of designing your rocket around the payload. (This would also stop people cramming EVERY science piece onto a simple LKO orbiter, and would give you more of a reason to have multiple launches and satellites).

[KawaiiLucy]

IMO such a feature puts emphasis on the wrong aspects of the game. While yes, KSP is about managing your space program with funds/reputation the mechanic adds unnecessary complexity which distracts from the main goal, which is to launch and fly rockets, not wait for them to be built. You could even create the lore, that when you launch a new rocket, the point in time doesn't coincide with the moment where you launch it; i.e. instead of the designing and launching phase being right after the other, rather think about the design having been developped some time prior, same as production. (I hope this was clear lol).

Now I could see why some people could find this mechanic attractive, it does at a layer of "realism",  but playing with KCT in ro/rp-1 has only brought frustration and not enjoyment. Instead of having to carefully manage when to launch and produce rockets, it was more of a game of warping until construction was done. Basically the same as normal with extra, unnecessary and frustrating steps in between. The idea of decreasing lanch costs for an already existing design would be more appealing to me in this situation.

[mattinoz]

15 minutes ago, B.Riches2500 said:

Perhaps this could be an enhanced version of career mode, where there is some incentive to do this (perhaps each time you design a brand new rocket, it uses a lot of funds. Like engineer wages and materials cost for example). That way there is a reason for you to have a standard rocket and design your payload around the rocket instead of designing your rocket around the payload. (This would also stop people cramming EVERY science piece onto a simple LKO orbiter, and would give you more of a reason to have multiple launches and satellites).

You could then sell off excess capacity in the lift on an open market. Fun mechanic in multi-player, just maybe don't let your opponents use it  in a space race they might plant low cost bombs.

[TLTay]

Another one here not in favor of construction time for the base game. Resource requirements, tech requirements, etc are enough for the base game and can be made into fun gameplay mechanics... Waiting to build things is not so much fun. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, KawaiiLucy said:

Now I could see why some people could find this mechanic attractive, it does at a layer of "realism",  but playing with KCT...

I think our judgement (of all people here, not only people against the idea) is a bit clouded by existing mods and/or gameplay features for KSP1.

Construction time is just a potential gameplay resource and/or balance factor, it can be implemented in various ways depending of what you want to achieve in the progression gameplay by adding it.

An example?

We all know about extraplanetary launch pads, what if they put short construction times for colonies and long ones for orbital shipyards while keeping Kerbin with none? 

It would keep Kerbin relevant longer into the career and they could justify it by saying "on kerbin you have a literal planet worth of industries and workforce to help with the program" and then balance it by making the rockets on Kerbin more expensive.

I'm not suggesting to do that, only showing how some ideas means nothing if taken out of the context surrounding them.

The same can be said for any other of these "will KSP have X resource or feature" threads.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Master39

[pandaman]

I have always assumed that 'VAB time' is behind the scenes R&D etc. So wouldn't have a lot of impact on game time as it can be assumed that it happens simultaneously.  I know currently, gameplay wise, we go into VAB and design it, hit launch and fly it immediately, but to me that feels a bit illogical.

If, for example, I need to send a rescue mission to the Mun in a hurry (I know  life support isn't a thing in stock, so the urgency isn't there, but this is just an example).  I can design and build a brand new custom vessel in effectively zero time.  I think design (VAB) time can be ignored from a gameplay perspective, but a delay to get that design launch ready is not out of place IMO.  It can be time warped through if there are no other events that need attention, and if there are, then that is where building ahead to minimise preparation time comes in.

Starship is a good example...  Space X can build them fairly quickly, but not instantaniously.  SN8 did it's job, SN 9 still needed finishing building before they could launch it.  And even if it had been completely built and ready it still needed taking to the pad and fuelling up before launch.  Were it already on a pad (and tested) then yes it could in theory have been fuelled up and launched very quickly.

[Drakenred65]

Ive tried the mod that. Does this, the problem was i found it agrivating to click though time to get anything built to the point it was literaly the first and last time I stoped playing ksp prior to landing on the mun. I’ve not reloaded the mon since.

 

that said I’m not innately against a mod that properly integrates  time constraints. But it sounds like KSP 2 is going for more of a reputation based system.

Edited March 16, 2021 by [email protected]