A concept of rocket reputation & reliability [KSP 2]

[Sonic1305]

Hey everyone,

this text is my attempt at proposing the idea of a system which could greatly improve the career mode gameplay by introducing new challenges and new mechanics inspired by real life.

Please bear in mind that I am not a rocket engineer nor a specialist in any of the topics I talk about. The features i suggest should be considered optional difficulty settings for the career mode and may not be included on easier difficulties by default . Also, sorry for any spelling mistakes as I am not a native english speaker and my native language is german.

So...let's begin!

The concept of rocket reliability

My first idea is not only a requirement & a big part of the second idea coming later but also, in my opinion, a concept really missing in the current KSP. Rocket reliability could change the well known gameplay a lot as not only (just somewhat!) random incidents & misfunctions are introduced as also the way you will build & use rockets will change. No longer will you be operating a just recently constructed rocket with 100% reliability as you first need to gather some science data of the vehicle and its components itself to increase the reliability of all the different parts and the rocket itself.

Starting with things like engine tests, rocket static fire tests are now always (maybe a science option to remove that?) required. Propellant tanks need to be pressure tested before you know the exact data. All of that requires money, space, the right equipment & scientists. With that, the research system also changes: No longer will you see the whole tech tree and know what you need to research to get part X. Now you have to have the right scientists & engineers specialized in the genre you want to advance in. You want a new sea level rocket engine? Get your team to work & research and they will develop a prototype. You don't have scientists trained in your desired components technology? Buy components from other companies for an increased amount of money.

I think you get the idea: New rocket stuff needs science, testing & also construction time (also a whole new gameplay mechanic as your parts have a limited stock) but that costs money & more so you get a whole nother level of ways to play the game. You got a mission from a rich guy living alone in the woods and he wants you to launch a satellite into LEO and gives you a hard deadline? Maybe quickly develop a prototype & launch the rocket without much testing? Or should we just buy some engines from another company and attach them to our tanks? When you decided which way you wanna go, you will create your rocket concept and announce the plans to the "media" (Well, in reality you just click "submit"). The rocket is now officially known by the space fascinated kerbals around kerbin. Now it is your time to shine as the rocket is now able to gather reputation (which directly incorporates reliability in a way). More about that in the second part of my post.

In case it isn't clear: These are just all my ideas stuffed into a quite simple concept so of course you could and should change things. I just think these mechanics could add a LOT more replayability and gameplay depth to the career mode which is my favourite way to play anyway and could really need some more managing aspects.

The concept of rocket reputation

Your rocket got a name now! Yay! Be aware of people annoying you on social media with strange WENHOP questions. Now with your rocket known around the world, you could start creating a wikipedia article with pictures & flight data of your fancy rocket (not a gameplay feature). But wait? Didn't your last mission (the one where you should deploy a satellite for some rich unknown guy) fail on stage separation, as you did not test the decouplers nor the second stage engines? Please don't forget to add that to the article! Oh, some random internet dudes already did that. Your customers won't like that!

Enough roleplay, I hope it still introduced you well to the second part of my concept. Rocket reputation is a stat that is bound to a rocket you created and "submitted". That means, if you change too much (how much is too much requires a lot more thinking) on the rocket itself, the rocket will lose all it's reputation as it is technically a (almost) completely new one (maybe keep some reputation if it still has a lot in common?). Of course you could replace an engine with an upgraded version of the same one, as your newly trained engineers continued to work day & night on improving the already existing concept to increase it's stats (btw this is again a whole new game mechanic on it's own) but you cannot simply replace the whole upper stage or switch your engines with a completely new one without losing (some?) reputation.

Now, some time later, your rocket has earned some good reputation, higher level contracts are available as the global trust in your abilities to build rockets and especially in the rocket you just proved to be working has increased. It is finally time for the rocket to become a global contender and not just a simple toy for random rich people or small satellites nobody will talk about. You want to transport THE BIG & IMPORTANT STUFF and, ofcourse, our beloved kerbals. To get the most rewarding contracts, you need to earn specific certificates.

Certificates work like "achievements" but are (mostly?) bound to your rocket. Prove your ability to deploy stuff into LEO and your rocket get's certified in that task which would not only offer your higher star contracts but could also allow you (if you want to enable that mechanic in your career) to let your star engineers prepare & launch contracts by themself, working in the background while you create new concepts or try to improve the existing one. The same is required to launch kerbals: Do some demo missions and prove that you CAN do it. If you can show the reliability of your rocket and your skill in achieving a specific task your rocket will get huma....i mean kerbal-certified and the big companies will ask YOU to launch their future kerbonauts. Yay! Also, your star engineers do your daily business to secure consequent funding. Finally, you are not only a rocket engineer but a real space company manager.

The end

At first, thank you for reading my suggestion for Kerbal Space Program 2. I am happy to discuss my ideas with you all and would really like some feedback. Ofcourse nothing is written in stone as this was just something I thought about an evening while talking with friends & watching a spacex mission. Again, keep in mind that all the introduced mechanics should be as customizeable as possible and just be some optional gameplay elements people CAN choose to enable. If you really like my concept, feel free to share it whereever you want.

See you next launch!

EDIT: Please read my answers to some concerns about the reliability part. I got a bit carried away by my interest in solving unexpected things so it would be nice If you would focus future answers on the reputation part and not so much on the reliability part, as I already realized that there shouldn't be such a rng factor in the game.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Sonic1305
Required notice

[Geonovast]

Moved to KSP 2 Discussion

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Sonic1305 said:

random incidents & misfunctions are introduced as also the way you will build & use rockets will change. No longer will you be operating a just recently constructed rocket with 100% reliability

Let me stop you right there. That goes against the basic principle of teaching things through trial and error.

If a rocket if good or not should never be decided by a dice roll in a simulation game, it would punish creativity.

[Sonic1305]

Just now, Master39 said:

Let me stop you right there. That goes against the basic principle of teaching things through trial and error.

If a rocket if good or not should never be decided by a dice roll in a simulation game, it would punish creativity.

I get your point, thats why it should be considered optional settings for the career mode only. It is supposed to add a new layer of management and also as I explained you can remove the whole factor of "randomness" through the required tests. If you use the principle of teaching things as an argument, why is there money in the career mode? Why do you need to research things first? All that are just optional settings, only meant for people who are looking for some kind of limitation in their creativity to increase difficulty and depth of some other aspects. Is it a dice roll if you know you did not do enough research into your components? I don't think so.

[TLTay]

Check out testflight mod for random failures and increased reliability with use and research. Check out realism overhaul/RSS/RP1 for in depth management and absolute realism at the expense of fun and accessibility (ymmv). 

[MKI]

3 hours ago, Sonic1305 said:

The concept of rocket reliability

There are no real enemies in KSP besides yourself and the environment. It's up to you to engineer your rockets, fly your ships, design your missions and organize your space program's infrastructure, all to handle the difficult task of space travel and whatever tasks you set for yourself.

Introducing reliability turns into a grind against the mechanics of the game, rather than a game within the mechanics. Sure it can be fun testing everything and dealing with unknown probabilities introduced via RNG, but I can see a number of scenarios where it turns into something a lot less than fun, namely turning into a grind of preventing yourself pain later.

I don't see how adding reliability into the game adds to the core experience the game sets out to present, which is to teach the complexities of space travel, without being a hyper realistic representation of the task.

 

As I understand it, KSP 2 will introduce new mechanics to help cut down on existing "grinding" to prevent you from having to do the same missions over and over, as part of the move toward more advance "future" space travel scenarios, like colonies. This makes "launch reliability testing" another thing that would be "automated away" if it was part of the game in the first place. 

This way the player can focus on expanding into new horizons using more advance technologies and exploring, while still learning actual complex science concepts. That is what the core KSP gameplay should focus on, and mods can focus on expanding on that platform how players want. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sonic1305 said:

If you use the principle of teaching things as an argument, why is there money in the career mode? Why do you need to research things first? All that are just optional settings, only meant for people who are looking for some kind of limitation in their creativity to increase difficulty and depth of some other aspects. Is it a dice roll if you know you did not do enough research into your components? I don't think so.

There's quite a difference between the normal constraints offered by those gameplay loops, which are predictable and can be worked with, and your proposal of putting an RNG bomb into every rocket to punish people trying to something different if they didn't do the required grind of make-believe busywork.

There are ways to implement the concept of reliability and proven designs without punishing people building a custom rocket for every single mission (which is a completely fine way of playing the game), if there's construction time you can play with that, if there's money you can make every other rocket after the first cost less and so on.

But touching the subject of RNG explosions it's a big no-no, in fact it was also said by Nate Simpson in a bunch of the early interviews.

[MeatyBoi]

this would be a good idea but just no social media part just media would be better also this would be a great feature for a difficulty setting  but you have to remember some people don't want to worry about this and just want to play it. It probably wouldn't be added but this would be a great mod or dlc for ksp 2. 

[Sonic1305]

39 minutes ago, MeatyBoi said:

this would be a good idea but just no social media part just media would be better also this would be a great feature for a difficulty setting  but you have to remember some people don't want to worry about this and just want to play it. It probably wouldn't be added but this would be a great mod or dlc for ksp 2. 

Well, the "social media part" was just my kind of "roleplay" to better explain my general concept, not meant as a real game feature. It was just the roleplay-explanation to better explain how the rocket reputation works in general.

[Sonic1305]

6 hours ago, MKI said:

There are no real enemies in KSP besides yourself and the environment. It's up to you to engineer your rockets, fly your ships, design your missions and organize your space program's infrastructure, all to handle the difficult task of space travel and whatever tasks you set for yourself.

Introducing reliability turns into a grind against the mechanics of the game, rather than a game within the mechanics. Sure it can be fun testing everything and dealing with unknown probabilities introduced via RNG, but I can see a number of scenarios where it turns into something a lot less than fun, namely turning into a grind of preventing yourself pain later.

I don't see how adding reliability into the game adds to the core experience the game sets out to present, which is to teach the complexities of space travel, without being a hyper realistic representation of the task.

 

As I understand it, KSP 2 will introduce new mechanics to help cut down on existing "grinding" to prevent you from having to do the same missions over and over, as part of the move toward more advance "future" space travel scenarios, like colonies. This makes "launch reliability testing" another thing that would be "automated away" if it was part of the game in the first place. 

This way the player can focus on expanding into new horizons using more advance technologies and exploring, while still learning actual complex science concepts. That is what the core KSP gameplay should focus on, and mods can focus on expanding on that platform how players want. 

Obviously, these mechanics need some way of balancing and probably some restrictions to when things can go wrong. It should not destroy your work when you do a mission that takes 30 or more real time minutes and then while landing on another planet suddenly your engines fail. It is more meant for some prototypes you build in your early game if you play "the spacex way" and maybe not happen at all if you do it "the nasa way", if you get what I mean.

Also, when thinking about it now, it could probably be a good idea to focus the "rng part" on the stuff the player doesn't directly do like automated missions you do not fly by yourself anymore and if you try to save money, there might be a really small possibility things could fail, which would only cost you some money and not cause your long work getting destroyed, only a single mission giving you some "problems" to deal with. Maybe it would be interesting if these automated flights get interrupted by mistakes of your flight controllers and then you can choose to fix the mission by yourself, like small challenges which will rarely come by in your normal ksp-career life where you need to do a rescue maneuver or some other mission changing stuff.

Maybe it would be enough if you added these tests and so on only to the science part and they become a way of early game thing where you still kinda develop the components by yourself before handing stuff over to specialized researchers. Could be interesting to include a few of them to show the process of developing and testing a new component like an engine and later breaking it down to a time factor which just makes these "always required" tests delay your launch times so you need to better plan your launches.

I maybe did not think enough about the pain it could cause but still, the most important part (for me) was the reputation part, as my original concern was to have a reason to use a specific rocket design longer even though I unlocked new parts where I normally would just build a new rocket. I wanted to add the process of maximizing what an already finished rocket could do and using that rocket like spacex will still use Falcon 9 when starship and super heavy is ready. I got a bit carried away with the "reliability" part which was originally only meant to be one thing influencing the overall rockets reputation. (And I really do like challenges where you need to handle unexpected stuff).

Thank you for your feedback!

[Sonic1305]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

There's quite a difference between the normal constraints offered by those gameplay loops, which are predictable and can be worked with, and your proposal of putting an RNG bomb into every rocket to punish people trying to something different if they didn't do the required grind of make-believe busywork.

There are ways to implement the concept of reliability and proven designs without punishing people building a custom rocket for every single mission (which is a completely fine way of playing the game), if there's construction time you can play with that, if there's money you can make every other rocket after the first cost less and so on.

But touching the subject of RNG explosions it's a big no-no, in fact it was also said by Nate Simpson in a bunch of the early interviews.

The way you describe it here was also the way i first imagined it, but I got carried away by my interest in solving unexpected things. After thinking about it, I guess the best way to look at the concept of reliability is to only introduce it to the part where you manage your rockets, contracts and company reputation and not on the actual live gameplay and if we still would like to include failures or so just do it like scripted optional challenges as a sub part of the game and not related to any of your personal prototyping. 

But I really think the focus should be on the reputation part. In my last answer, I explained a bit more of how I ended up overthinking the reliability part. As I said by myself, it would be nice to include more depth into the managing aspect of the game and I still believe my rocket reputation idea with rocket designs you keep using although you could build a new rocket with new parts, would greatly enhance the way of planning rockets to be more of a long-term thing if you plan on getting better contracts for example.

So let's just forget about that warhead I was trying to sneak into each rocket and come back to the managing and planning aspect of leading a space company which was my original goal.

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

[mcwaffles2003]

Adding in the need to do test fires and test launches doesn't do a lot to enhance the fun of the game and sounds like it serves to take up a lot of time from the many other priorities the game is putting forward. I say this as someone who has multiple RP-1 career playthroughs and has played with similar mechanics on. I play with these on to simulate real factors NASA and other space agencies dealt while knowing outside getting rockets from point A to point B there aren't many other game mechanics to deal with so I have more time available. But I am going to be flying rockets through interstellar distances, managing colonies, book keeping and managing the logistics of resource discovery and procurement in KSP 2 and I doubt I will come close to completing the game. Adding in the RNG ship engine failures in stock seems like way too much and makes every one of those harder while not really adding as much fun as it subtracts. Imagine launching your first interstellar vessel and upon arriving to your next star system years later your engine  stops despite doing everything correctly... I would have to stock up on some of this

Not even dark souls is that mean.

EDIT: Also, your english is fine, wouldn't know you weren't a native speaker

Edited June 29, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[Sonic1305]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Adding in the need to do test fires and test launches doesn't do a lot to enhance the fun of the game and sounds like it serves to take up a lot of time from the many other priorities the game is putting forward. I say this as someone who has multiple RP-1 career playthroughs and has played with similar mechanics on. I play with these on to simulate real factors NASA and other space agencies dealt while knowing outside getting rockets from point A to point B there aren't many other game mechanics to deal with so I have more time available. But I am going to be flying rockets through interstellar distances, managing colonies, book keeping and managing the logistics of resource discovery and procurement in KSP 2 and I doubt I will come close to completing the game. Adding in the RNG ship engine failures in stock seems like way too much and makes every one of those harder while not really adding as much fun as it subtracts. Imagine launching your first interstellar vessel and upon arriving to your next star system years later your engine  stops despite doing everything correctly... I would have to stock up on some of this

Not even dark souls is that mean.

Yeah, I already adressed that part in my latest answers, got a bit carried away by my interest in solving unexpected things ^^

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Sonic1305 said:

But I really think the focus should be on the reputation part. In my last answer, I explained a bit more of how I ended up overthinking the reliability part. As I said by myself, it would be nice to include more depth into the managing aspect of the game and I still believe my rocket reputation idea with rocket designs you keep using although you could build a new rocket with new parts, would greatly enhance the way of planning rockets to be more of a long-term thing if you plan on getting better contracts for example.

+1 for more managing gameplay, my main problem was with the random failures.

9/10 of my flights are prototypes and test flights, if you want the "spacex prototypes" kind of gameplay there's ample room to play that way even without any dedicated system, but if in KSP2 we'll have some dedicated systems (like being able to recover, modify and refly the same exact craft or being able to reuse cargo ships) that kind of gameplay could be hugely rewarded by allowing you to use way less infrastructure to accomplish the same goals of a player only using expendable crafts.

Without going far immagine the stage recovery mod but with a test flight requirement instead of an automatic simulation.

[Sonic1305]

2 minutes ago, Master39 said:

+1 for more managing gameplay, my main problem was with the random failures.

9/10 of my flights are prototypes and test flights, if you want the "spacex prototypes" kind of gameplay there's ample room to play that way even without any dedicated system, but if in KSP2 we'll have some dedicated systems (like being able to recover, modify and refly the same exact craft or being able to reuse cargo ships) that kind of gameplay could be hugely rewarded by allowing you to use way less infrastructure to accomplish the same goals of a player only using expendable crafts.

Without going far immagine the stage recovery mod but with a test flight requirement instead of an automatic simulation.

Recovering and reusing would increase the depth a lot, a whole new level of planning and preparing. But I think it is also some kind of "reuse" when you don't need to develop new rockets every time a new part unlocks or even change the way new parts unlock by adding an upgrade system where you can increase the performance of some components by a small amount if you choose to invest time and money so you save that on prototyping a completely new rocket.

This way, you add a new level of managing and depth without limiting the players freedom. You can still play the old fashioned way and not reuse, always prototype new stuff and earn money with that or choose to maximize each and every rocket to the limits. Maybe the overall career difficulty would influence the required amount of "reuse" in the later game.

Including test flights would fit best to my certificate idea, like your idea with the stage recovery. You may need one test flight for special achievements / things your rocket should "learn", like stage recovery or kerbal transport but the later one could easily be implemented as a multi-layer contract where the missions include the certificate for kerbal transport or space station resupply for example.

25 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

EDIT: Also, your english is fine, wouldn't know you weren't a native speaker

Thanks a lot, I wish I could speak english that way lol

[MKI]

11 hours ago, Sonic1305 said:

Maybe it would be enough if you added these tests and so on only to the science part and they become a way of early game thing where you still kinda develop the components by yourself before handing stuff over to specialized researchers. Could be interesting to include a few of them to show the process of developing and testing a new component like an engine and later breaking it down to a time factor which just makes these "always required" tests delay your launch times so you need to better plan your launches.

I think this touches on something at already exists in the game right now that I kinda forgot about.

You already can take contracts to "test" parts in a given criteria, which gives you some funds/science/goals without forcing you to do anything, which I think fills the "I gotta test all these parts" realism idea without becoming "Gosh darn I gotta test all these parts! >:["

[Snark]

Yay, as of today, we now have a new subforum, "KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion"! 

Since this thread is very much a suggestion, moving it over there.