KerbalKon Announcements

[Sethnizzle]

Also, space mining has driven exactly zero national space programs this far, beyond the "wouldn't it be cool to harvest resources someday" So while you can hold the opinion that mining is crucial to any space program game, it it not really based in reality and Squad has plenty of design room to work around them should mining not make sense within the gameplay of KSP.

True, however I would say a lack of space mining has inhibited every space program. It is prohibitively too expensive and impractical to carry all the fuel required for round-trip travel to other planets. One of the reasons (besides indication of life) for trying to find water on every planetary body we explore is to create fuel for the return trip for manned missions. Add to that the recent advancements in commercial extraterrestrial mining and I would argue that adding resources/mining to KSP would be more realistic than not having it.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Sethnizzle

[Tiberion]

Tiberion, I've debated you all weekend. Lean back, step into the shoes of the people you're talking about for a moment. Read what you just wrote up there.

It doesn't matter whether you're right or not, or how angry they are or how unreasonable it is. They are angry. And calling it a temper tantrum and them rioters and abusers is NOT going to make them sit down and say 'oh yes, how silly of me.'

It is not a thing to be "angry" about at all. Being angry and reacting emotionally is the wrong decision here. I don't really expect them to change, but I am not going to placate anyone or validate their feelings when they deliver so much vitriol. Do to so would encourage them to continue it. So if I share a harsh word about it, someone might accidentally take stock and apply future feedback in a useful manner.

Trust me, I have invested a lot of time and energy into this game and have felt the temptation to 'flame on' numerous times. But its a bad idea.

True, however I would say a lack of space mining has inhibited every space program. It is prohibitively too expensive and impractical to carry all the fuel required for round-trip travel to other planets. One of the reasons (besides indication of life) for trying to find water on every planetary body we explore is to create fuel for the return trip for manned missions. Add to that the recent advancements in commercial extraterrestrial mining and I would argue that adding resources/mining to KSP would be more realistic than not having it.

Yes, resource limitations certainly inhibit lots of space programs. As does gravity, and relativity, and the inhospitable living conditions for humans and machines alike. And solving those challenges is part of what makes adventuring into space engaging and interesting, even when we're only flying around little green dudes in a sim.

So there is a real danger that making resources too readily available 'out there' via mining and refining could actually remove the challenge and the danger. Or that balancing those issues to keep it from making it too easy instead makes it too much of a grind or isn't fun.

These are all things that the smart people at SquadHQ talked about whenever they were working on this system. It was part of what they considered when they decided to stop development on the resource mining system we saw in the flowchart. And that is part of the challenge that lays ahead for them - how to find that balance between keeping the game fun and keeping it challenging. Nobody has said that resources and logistics won't play a role in the final game.. just not the version we saw (only on the drawing board, mind you)

As for realism: I don't really agree. Currently, real scientists have a lot of work ahead of them trying to figure out ways to actually extract and utilize any water or fuel we find out there. Certainly having kerbals plopping down bases on Duna and refilling liquid engines sounds interesting, but it is nowhere near 'realistic' at this point.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Tiberion

[Stargate525]

It is not a thing to be "angry" about at all. Being angry and reacting emotionally is the wrong decision here. I don't really expect them to change, but I am not going to placate anyone or validate their feelings when they deliver so much vitriol. Do to so would encourage them to continue it. So if I share a harsh word about it, someone might accidentally take stock and apply future feedback in a useful manner.

Trust me, I have invested a lot of time and energy into this game and have felt the temptation to 'flame on' numerous times. But its a bad idea.

I agree it's a bad idea. I AGREE that people shouldn't get super angry about a dev decision. But there is a difference between validation and placation. I am a teacher, I've dealt with angry, frustrated children and adults. No amount of logic or reason or telling them to just 'not be angry' will work when they are already there.

You admit you're being harsh. This is the WRONG tact. That action is the equivalent of shouting back. You are feeding that anger. Perpetuating it. Potentially turning disappointment and hurt into genuine rage. As cathartic as it sometimes feel to shoot barbs back at them, you CAN'T if you want any hope of a rational discussion from there on out.

I recall in one of the earlier threads when you called everything I'd said up to that point... I don't remember exactly, but it wasn't pleasant. Fortunately, I've learned to take people who say that to me very seriously indeed. For almost anyone else... that is an attack on THEM. It's natural to unsheathe the claws and fight back. They might have thrown the first metaphorical punch, but that does not give anyone license to go weapons-free on them and fire back. In a lot of cases, THEY DON'T REALIZE THEY STRUCK FIRST.

[Danish_Savage]

I agree it's a bad idea. I AGREE that people shouldn't get super angry about a dev decision. But there is a difference between validation and placation. I am a teacher, I've dealt with angry, frustrated children and adults. No amount of logic or reason or telling them to just 'not be angry' will work when they are already there.

You admit you're being harsh. This is the WRONG tact. That action is the equivalent of shouting back. You are feeding that anger. Perpetuating it. Potentially turning disappointment and hurt into genuine rage. As cathartic as it sometimes feel to shoot barbs back at them, you CAN'T if you want any hope of a rational discussion from there on out.

I recall in one of the earlier threads when you called everything I'd said up to that point... I don't remember exactly, but it wasn't pleasant. Fortunately, I've learned to take people who say that to me very seriously indeed. For almost anyone else... that is an attack on THEM. It's natural to unsheathe the claws and fight back. They might have thrown the first metaphorical punch, but that does not give anyone license to go weapons-free on them and fire back. In a lot of cases, THEY DON'T REALIZE THEY STRUCK FIRST.

Boys, if you feel like shouting at each other, could't you do it in a PM. The thing is, that in cases like this there is no definite answer. Life isn't black or white, it's all grey tones. This case is an example of how different people are, which is something we wont be capable of changing. Therefore we should not be constantly trying to streamline everyone's opinion, because that just never works out, and especially not on a realm so fast-phased as the Internet.

These last few days, there seems to be developing a flamewar on these forums. And while I like the fact that it makes people write long, and thought trough post, I get kinda pissed of when people keep expecting others to see it from their own angle. Because that just won't happen. So while calmed discussions are a gift to the forums, please don't get yourself's heated up for an debate that can't be won.

And while its understandable to be disappointed about the devs taking another road than the one you envisioned, it does not mean that you should get into fights about it. Its a game. The devs have absolute rule over it, and yes you paid them money, but what you paid for was access to the game that they where developing, and that they have delivered. However they are so kind and understanding that they do listen to our concerns, and they do pay notice to our suggestions. But if you want to make them notice your ideas, you should write it in a calm and professional tone.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Danish_Savage

[Tiberion]

I agree it's a bad idea. I AGREE that people shouldn't get super angry about a dev decision. But there is a difference between validation and placation. I am a teacher, I've dealt with angry, frustrated children and adults. No amount of logic or reason or telling them to just 'not be angry' will work when they are already there.

You admit you're being harsh. This is the WRONG tact. That action is the equivalent of shouting back. You are feeding that anger. Perpetuating it. Potentially turning disappointment and hurt into genuine rage. As cathartic as it sometimes feel to shoot barbs back at them, you CAN'T if you want any hope of a rational discussion from there on out.

I recall in one of the earlier threads when you called everything I'd said up to that point... I don't remember exactly, but it wasn't pleasant. Fortunately, I've learned to take people who say that to me very seriously indeed. For almost anyone else... that is an attack on THEM. It's natural to unsheathe the claws and fight back. They might have thrown the first metaphorical punch, but that does not give anyone license to go weapons-free on them and fire back. In a lot of cases, THEY DON'T REALIZE THEY STRUCK FIRST.

I'm not really interested in placating, validating, or any of that. My intent is to continue to inject some reason in this echo chamber where the same few people feed off of each other's froth and discuss the 'issues' in a circle, each iteration with stronger condemnation and less reason. Maybe we're doing the same thing on a smaller scale, I don't know, but its something different at least.

I plan to continue to voice my dissent and to refute especially egregious statements, because they otherwise float out there and get adopted as some sort of "truth"

I don't plan to hold my tongue. We tried that during the last one of these eruptions, the so called "DLC drama" where the fervor climbed and climbed and no one really said too much in opposition. That Squad made a strong statement about content being free is a godo thing, but they were also driven into a communication blackout that we've only recently emerged from as new community people have come on board.

I don't want to see it happen again.

[Sethnizzle]

Yes, resource limitations certainly inhibit lots of space programs. As does gravity, and relativity, and the inhospitable living conditions for humans and machines alike. And solving those challenges is part of what makes adventuring into space engaging and interesting, even when we're only flying around little green dudes in a sim.

So there is a real danger that making resources too readily available 'out there' via mining and refining could actually remove the challenge and the danger. Or that balancing those issues to keep it from making it too easy instead makes it too much of a grind or isn't fun.

These are all things that the smart people at SquadHQ talked about whenever they were working on this system. It was part of what they considered when they decided to stop development on the resource mining system we saw in the flowchart. And that is part of the challenge that lays ahead for them - how to find that balance between keeping the game fun and keeping it challenging. Nobody has said that resources and logistics won't play a role in the final game.. just not the version we saw (only on the drawing board, mind you)

As for realism: I don't really agree. Currently, real scientists have a lot of work ahead of them trying to figure out ways to actually extract and utilize any water or fuel we find out there. Certainly having kerbals plopping down bases on Duna and refilling liquid engines sounds interesting [and fun], but it is nowhere near 'realistic' at this point.

I'm on board with all of your points and opinions except with the idea of adding mining to KSP as being "nowhere near realistic." It is certainly in the realm of possibility in real life, so it shouldn't be hard to make the leap to believability for it to be in KSP. Especially when you consider the scale of what is acceptably "realistic" as already established by the game. If you are able to accept that Kerbals are capable of manned interplanetary exploration (something we can't do irl "at this point"), even visiting every planet in a single mission, then certainly you can accept mining as being realistic...

Thats the only issue I wanted to address as I pretty much agree with you on everything else. The proposed resource system was exciting, but admittedly too complicated. I'd be fine with a more refined and official version of the Kethane mod. I also didn't interpret Harvs explanation as completely doing away with resources/mining. I enjoy setting up fuel depots but I am also looking forward to the other things Harv has in mind when he said they want to make creating bases and stations more meaningful and fun.

[Draft]

My main gripes so far are with Harvester's logic as presented, and I've said this across several forums by now.

The original plan for resources may very well have been too complicated to be fun. I can believe that, it had a lot of dedicated steps and single-use parts and didn't really tie into anything. I don't see that as a reason to abandon all plans for the feature, though, but as a reason to iterate to something that's more simple and more integrated with the rest of the game. A good handful of the features coming in tomorrow's update definitely fall into the category of 'further framework we can build things like resources off of'.

As for the excuse that forgetting a part on your rocket isn't fun, that argument falls flat on several levels. Firstly, pretty much everyone has some story of a forgotten parachute, or antenna, or landing gear, or batteries, or solar panels, any of which can render a mission a complete failure. That doesn't make them bad, unfun features. Secondly, if you're afraid that people won't even know that drills and such exist, that's a reason to improve the ingame documentation, not to throw out the plans for the feature. By tomorrow we'll have an R&D center here we can review science reports and whatever else von Kerman wishes to tell us. We'll have more capable part tooltips and tweakables to let us know more about the parts we're using and how they work.

It just doesn't add up, in my mind. Either they're making a mistake by my reckoning, or they've decided to do these things in secret for whatever reason and in another year we'll hear that resources have always been on the plan internally, and anybody who said otherwise was wrong.

[allmhuran]

a reason to iterate to something that's more simple and more integrated with the rest of the game.

Fantastic post, agree with everything there. I especially wanted to quote this line though. It's the integration that we're missing, that's just the perfect word to use. Even the science system is not really an integrated component right now. Sure, it unlocks parts, but it does so on a bit of a gimmicky way, it's just a tacked-on mechanic, and that's largely what makes it so grindy.

[bsalis]

Guessing i'm alone here thinking that the saddest part of this announcement is not the No Mining Mo Stuff, but the following...

We aren’t ready to disclose any new ideas now because we’re focused on Career Mode and anything we bring up now could end up getting scrapped later and we’ll have the same issue we have now.

[Axder]

Well I will add my two cents.

1) Why are people angry? Becouse they were promised resources last kerbalkon, being scraped spring 2013. If I remeber corectly thats what costed Damion his position as a comunity manager. If I remeber corectly it was something about building bases and complex mining was considered being added as a expansion. And outrage was quie suvire. So people are waiting a year for this feature, which could again revolutunaze the way we play a game. (Unlike science, which is curently just play a game with less parts)

2) Multyplayer is wierd, and will be wierd. How anybody ever said hey man lets play flight simulator on this lan party. (Well nobody ever) Becouse map is fricking huge and you can both be on other side of the universe literaly. With KSP added time warp it boils down to actualy one person is playing and rest is either waiting or building in VAB. Only momens which could be fun is shared building of space stations and bases. But i dont think its a good move. Veteran players are alredy getting kinda bored, and teaching your friends orbital mechanics is fun. But not in a long run or if you are playing alone.

As for ongoing debate. I completly agree that mining resources and fuel, makes things super easy. It is true. I instaled kethane and it is easy to just strap bunch of parts and do a grand tour with OP self suficient lander. My imaginary idea off one day implemantaion of resources will be some sot of colony mechanics combined with curency. In the end we will be able to put VAB on Duna or Gilly. Prefrebly like you land this 5 super heavy pars 2 km apart and kerbals would actualy build something out of it. And than you can buy parts there for some extreme cost, which can be lovered by bringing more miners or other buildings. I strongly belive that astronaut recruitment complex could have more categories. Like pilots scientist miners, drivers etc. With each having sosme bonuses.

ANd lastly as for squad, I completly understand why you comunicate as you comunicate. I was in some sort of a same endevaur, and in the end you just have to comunicate like a lawyer becouse anything you say will be used against you.

[magnemoe]

I'm on board with all of your points and opinions except with the idea of adding mining to KSP as being "nowhere near realistic." It is certainly in the realm of possibility in real life, so it shouldn't be hard to make the leap to believability for it to be in KSP. Especially when you consider the scale of what is acceptably "realistic" as already established by the game. If you are able to accept that Kerbals are capable of manned interplanetary exploration (something we can't do irl "at this point"), even visiting every planet in a single mission, then certainly you can accept mining as being realistic...

Thats the only issue I wanted to address as I pretty much agree with you on everything else. The proposed resource system was exciting, but admittedly too complicated. I'd be fine with a more refined and official version of the Kethane mod. I also didn't interpret Harvs explanation as completely doing away with resources/mining. I enjoy setting up fuel depots but I am also looking forward to the other things Harv has in mind when he said they want to make creating bases and stations more meaningful and fun.

Yes I say RL mining water from moon or an asteroid is more realistic than an manned Mars Mission.

In KSP an apollo style mission to Duna+ Ike has no need for mining, even with hitchhiker container and command module for mothership and two man lander and both targets.

You save launch weight from pad if you top off the mothership with fuel from Minmus but mission is no easier.

Jool grand tour would benefit a lot from mining, so will missions using oversized motherships or large bases.

[CalculusWarrior]

I'm on board with all of your points and opinions except with the idea of adding mining to KSP as being "nowhere near realistic." It is certainly in the realm of possibility in real life, so it shouldn't be hard to make the leap to believability for it to be in KSP. Especially when you consider the scale of what is acceptably "realistic" as already established by the game. If you are able to accept that Kerbals are capable of manned interplanetary exploration (something we can't do irl "at this point"), even visiting every planet in a single mission, then certainly you can accept mining as being realistic...

The thing that gets me with resources is that they are just not necessary for the main game. While one can certainly set up a vast system of mining vehicles and refineries, using them to refuel your ships is kind of overkill.

An argument being made is that resource mining is a focus of real-life space programs, and as such should be in KSP. However, real-life space programs have to deal with Earth's much larger size, which requires craft which are exponentially larger than the ships used by us KSP players (well, except if you've installed that real life solar system mod).

Thus, if you need to refuel your ship stuck in orbit, you wouldn't spend a lot of time and energy setting up a mining base, you'd just build a heavy lift rocket and fly a couple Orange Tanks out from Kerbin.

The point I'm trying to make here is that resources aren't entirely necessary for the core game of KSP. Sure, they add extra fun and roleplay (perhaps even saving money), but you can get anywhere in the solar (kerbolar?) system just by launching all your fuel from Kerbin.

As such, I see why Squad has designated resources as an end-game feature; they don't add any critical features to the game (you can accomplish just as much with as without them). While I would have rather seen Squad focus on those end-game features after completing Career mode rather than multiplayer, I understand where they're coming from and I respect their decision.

[Fourjays]

Not interested in multiplayer. Even more so when I see what people do in it (build weapons). Just hope when they are implementing it that they still add things to singleplayer and the focus remains primarily on the singleplayer. If KSP goes down a multiplayer oriented route then I'll probably stop playing it.

Would like to see resources, but mods do fine at it so far.

[Mr. Scruffy]

The way i´d like ressources (on bodies) be implemented would go somewhere along these lines:

- They are there for you to discover. Sats give rough ressource maps. Taking a sample from a site will mark that site.

- Marked Sites can be recommended to other in-game entities (read: companies) for exploitation.

- A while after that, if any marked site has turned out to be interesting enough (+ mabye some other pre-requisites have been met, like bringing and returning a kerbal there, f.e.), a company will show up with a contract for you to bring up a mining device (given by them) to the site. They´ll pay you a lump sum upon successful completion.

- Wether a company will offer a contract for a specific site depends on its value (ressource type & quantity) and the overall time in the game elapsed (the later in the game it is, the more valuable ressources will become, assuming steady supply, making sites seem ever more tasty as time elapses).

- Running mining operations (by your former contractors) lower the costs of specific parts, depending on ressource type. One ressource might be an excellent solid propellant, say, and thus, the more of it is being extracted throughout the system, the cheaper solid boosters will be.

- Mines are running completely independent and are not much more than a marker on the map and a device on the ground, plus the bonus attached as mentioned above, gameplay wise. No transport ships or crew ferrying or such gets represented, since none of that is part of your space-program, but of an independent private enterprise (having certain techs developed could be a pre-requisite for having any mining operations start, though). Mines deplete the site they are gathering from and close down after complete exploitation of it.

[Dogface]

I would like to say that it's good to hear official statement - finally.

I also think that by improving communication with the community Squad can only gain more support from us. Most of the emotions were borned because we were misinformed and without any official information we had to speculate and guess. So to take something positive from all this mess I suggest even bigger transparency to clear the air and kill all the speculations once and for all

^^^^This

[darpavader]

KSP is running into the same problem that real world space agencies are running into. We can get into space, NOW WHAT? IMO, the science system in the game now needs to be tied into a resource system. Things like the mystery goo could be more attracted to certain elements leading the kerbals in the discovery of elements on different planets and moons. Maybe new metals could be found that would open up new parts. This also should be tied into the life support system. And I'm not sure why this has to ne so complex. Kerbals are not humans. who knows how many snacks or water or air they need.

anyway, we're so close to having a perfect game.

[tntristan12]

For those of you saying that mining resources to maintain life support would be a grind, consider this: The kerbal solar system is much, much smaller than our own. A round trip to Duna takes only a few months of real time, essentially a one way trip to its real life analogue - Mars. So it is not outside the realm of possibility that enough life support "stuff" (food, water, oxygen, etc) could be loaded onto the ship for a very long time. I'm talking a year or so of in-game time. If that were the case, the only time you'd need to worry about "mining" life support "stuff" (food, water, oxygen, etc) would be if you were planning a long-term stay there... Which is certainly a very reasonable expectation. That way, you don't even need to worry about it if all you're planning to do is go there, do science, then get back.

That's just one example of how we could compromise between people who really want resource mining, and those who think it'd be too much of a grind. Concessions can be made so that the realism of the KSP universe is upheld while the fun of the KSP game is also upheld. Just something to think about guys.

[regex]

That's just one example of how we could compromise between people who really want resource mining, and those who think it'd be too much of a grind. Concessions can be made so that the realism of the KSP universe is upheld while the fun of the KSP game is also upheld. Just something to think about guys.

You are working under the assumption that anybody who thought SQUAD's proposed resource system looked grindy didn't want resources in the first place, which is not even close to the truth. I would love to see mine-able resources in the game, especially so I can pull off real-world-esque proposals where a small probe can do in-situ refueling and then return with a core sample, or something similar. As you mention it would also be nice to keep base resources topped off with ice mining or something similar. Unfortunately that terrible spaghetti mess of resources pretty much only worked on an industrial scale and would have been grind city, and boring as hell.

[tntristan12]

I'm not convinced that the only options available to the devs for resource mining are "overly simplistic" or "industrial strength convolution." I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere worth exploring. For example, what if the goal of resource mining was to collect any of the primary consumable resources: Dirt/Regolith/Topsoil (can be used in building), Water (for use in life support), Oxygen (also for use in life support), Oxidizer (compressed oxygen), Liquid Fuel, Monopropellent (compressed liquid fuel), or EVA Propellent (even further compressed Monopropellent).

You pretty much start with Dirt/Regolith/Topsoil which you get directly from the drill. You have a second unit which breaks it down into constituent parts - Water, Liquid Fuel, and more Dirt/Regolith/Topsoil, in differing ratios depending on where you're mining it from. For example, if you're mining on an ice cap you get a higher ratio of Water to other stuff. If you're mining on Eve, you get a higher ratio of Liquid Fuel. If you're mining on the Munar Equator, you get a higher ratio of Dirt/Regolith/Topsoil. And hey, you know what? We don't really even need two separate units for this do we? So let's just get rid of the separator as its own unit and couple it with the drill, so instead of getting out soil from the ground it automatically splits it into these three things that you get in different ratios no matter where you are in the solar system!

Okay, so after that you then have a second unit which can use electricity to compress/convert the base resource into other more useful resources. So for this example, you could put in Water, and for a certain amount of electricity get out Oxygen. Put in twice that amount of electricity and you get out Oxidizer. You use that *same unit* and pump in Liquid Fuel and you can similarly get out Monoprop or EVA prop, again depending on how much precious electricity you want to part with. What about Dirt? Well, it could be used as ballast, brought home for science, or simply dumped overboard because it's not as useful.

Two units: Drill/Separator, and Converter. Each one takes a certain amount of electricity. Besides the two units needed for the actual mining, you'd only really need to add a third part for storage, and let's say it's just one unit that can contain certain amounts of all three mineable resources. Also, notice that the "resource map" I described only has three branches: Water -> Oxygen -> Oxidizer, Liquid Fuel -> Monopropellent -> EVA Propellent, and Dirt, which doesn't really do much of anything except possibly net you science points and allow you to fulfill contracts back home possibly. That hardly seems like a "terrible spaghetti mess of resources" to me. In fact, it pretty much runs off the same principal as Kethane, but instead of discrete deposits that you need to locate you are using the built-in biome structure that already exists in the game. As long as you're able to run mining and converting out of focus, this would be a pretty streamlined way of doing things.

Really, I just came up with this on the spot. I'm sure it's not a perfect scheme, but if I can come up with this within five minutes of brainstorming I'm sure I could fill any loopholes if I had the combined resources of Squad at my disposal. Don't you think?

[regex]

I'm not convinced that the only options available to the devs for resource mining are "overly simplistic" or "industrial strength convolution." I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere worth exploring.

No one is disputing that. I don't even think SQUAD is. It's just that SQUAD's early proposal was a terrible spaghetti mess that really only worked on an industrial scale. Any solution for resources should meet the needs of small-time resource users and industrial-scale tycoons, and it should be fun (or at least unobtrusive), and should also not become the main focus of the game.

[tntristan12]

I agree. What I'm trying to do is help come up with something that might be appealing to the devs or modmakers as a potential solution. Something that isn't perfect, but might be developed into something that works. Isn't that the least that we as a community can do?

As for the solution I outlined in my last post, I came up with a graph of what I had in mind because I honestly have nothing better to do. I feel like something like this would contribute to gameplay without becoming the sole purpose of it, because everything you get out of it could help you in your overall mission, but isn't just the sole reason for being. What do you think?

EDIT: This would tie in nicely with the "gather surface sample" mechanic introduced in 0.22, since you could use your surface samples to predetermine what kind of breakdown you'd get when you come back later to mine it.

Edited December 17, 2013 by tntristan12

[regex]

I agree. What I'm trying to do is help come up with something that might be appealing to the devs or modmakers as a potential solution. Something that isn't perfect, but might be developed into something that works. Isn't that the least that we as a community can do?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61605-Modding-Team-Wanted-the-Resource-Expansion-Module-Project

As for the solution I outlined in my last post, I came up with a graph of what I had in mind because I honestly have nothing better to do. I feel like something like this would contribute to gameplay without becoming the sole purpose of it, because everything you get out of it could help you in your overall mission, but isn't just the sole reason for being. What do you think?

Would probably work fine. I'd want a small, all-in-one part for probes though.

[tntristan12]

Would probably work fine. I'd want a small, all-in-one part for probes though.

Yeah, maybe something that's similar in size to the 1.25 meter ion engine, that can drill, separate, and convert all at once, but rather than have all the benefits of separate manned units, it can only produce resource at a time, and in smaller quantities?

[LethalDose]

Any solution for resources should meet the needs of small-time resource users and industrial-scale tycoons, and it should be fun (or at least unobtrusive), and should also not become the main focus of the game.

Honestly, I strongly disagree that small probes should be able to manage their own refueling with zero external refueling. I think there should be some level of infrastructure that is needed for mining, resourcing, resource conversion, etc. for the explicit purpose of preventing this. As you pointed out there's a middle ground, for complexity as well as infrastructure.

That middle ground should exclude that low-end probe refueling (they should need to carry their own fuel), and the high-end "only massive creations can do resourcing". Moving towards the low-end would be too close to trivializing fuel use and too exploitable.

[Stargate525]

Yeah, maybe something that's similar in size to the 1.25 meter ion engine, that can drill, separate, and convert all at once, but rather than have all the benefits of separate manned units, it can only produce resource at a time, and in smaller quantities?

I'd suggest the same drawback as the ion: Super-duper slow and takes a metric ton of electricity.