ARM SLS Parts and the Start of The Career mode age?

[MKI]

I have been reading a lot about how the new ARM parts should be nerfed, or changed to "fit the game better". I have been thinking about the implications of changing them to make them more "balanced" as well. Then i started thinking about the bigger picture and came to a simple conclusion that roots back to the name of the game.

Since Career mode was implemented in .22, every update has given focus and updates to it(even if it is only a few updates). Little has come in the way of Sandbox upgrades, beyond basic game play updates that help both. Such as the Patch conics updates that make manuver nodes more accurate. The last and most recent update, 23.5, has given us 2 major game play changes.

1. Asteroids and their science and game play implications

2. new 3.75 parts, designed after the NASA SLS system

The Asteroids themselves are interesting and add another dimension to the game entirely on their own. The new parts have come under some criticism for being much stronger than generally acceptable. Their high thrust and efficiency basically blow most original parts out of the water. So why would the Dev's make such strong parts in the first place?

They made the new parts with the future in mind. Not the past, where Sandbox and general game play was all based around flying around with the ships you made. The hard work put into efficient flying machines, and flying them to far off lands all using the older parts seem vulnerable to the newer, stronger more efficient SLS parts.

So the masses call for balance, to counter this new power creep on the age old custom of niche engines, and balance parameters.

The argument fits well with the sandbox idealism that KSP has been based around its whole life as a game. Don't implement something overpowered or the game loses some of its luster as a realistic, hard space sim. Where achieving orbit literally is half of the difficulty.

This is when the new idea must take place. Where KSP as a game is going to change and take a leap, in the same way I see players of the future KSP taking a leap when they handle a completely different issue we do not deal with.

In a simple, single word KSP will change from a sandbox build and launch game, to a more strategic, objective and semi structured game.

Funding

Science is the only currency career mode has, and it fuels more an unlock to sandbox mode driven career. The Dev's have already talked about reputation and contracts. This is another step toward what KSP is to become. There is a reason why Kerbal Space Program isn't Kerbal Space Simulator. You are going to have to run a Space Program, and what is a program without FUNDING. This is where these new parts exist, and their balance parameters come in.

The ARM parts are not designed for sandbox, or should be viewed as a counterpart to the older parts. They represent a new age of Kerbal Space Program. Saying these parts aren't balanced is viewing things the old way, where all parts are balanced against each other. These parts are designed for the future, where funding, reputation and tech limitations all meet to require a single, massive, effective launch vehicle that needs to be good enough to get a full mission to a distance moon that hasn't been added yet. You could build multiple launches or a single big pricey one with these parts.

The game has changed, these parts signal it. Living in the past of Kerbal Build Program is going to always have its days, sandbox will always be around. But it wont be the main attraction, it will be Career mode and its challenges that still have to come.

So give it time to see the new challenges come in career mode. You may need the SLS parts as strong as they need to be once all the challenges arrive.

Edited April 8, 2014 by MKI

[TheSuperintendnt]

You have said it better than I could, and this logic is very accurate, the real SLS system is about the same size as the Saturn V but twice as powerful last time I checked. That being said it probably costs more money to build than the Saturn V and has most defiantly cost time a lot of time AND money to develop it and the proceeding technologies. Money is going to be the balance that so many want.

[95tiger59]

this is 100% correct going along with the SLS parts strength at some point we made need to (or well I guess some are already) use them for MASSIVE constructs in space that 2.5 and 1.25 just wont cut without extensive and complicated staging

[Comrade Jenkens]

I understand the career and tech tree justifying the new parts but what I don't understand is why only 3.75m parts can be efficient and powerful? If we get suitable upgrades to 1.25 and 2.5m parts as the tech tree progresses I'll be happy simply because I prefer to always use the smallest rocket possible for the task.

[Liowen]

I agree with that except on the grounds for sandbox, that should be up to the player to decide what they want to run on their ships not forced by Squad or others (unless I misread something). As far as I can tell the new parts are not forcing player to use just those parts, unless there is a bug in sandbox mode when you click on a main sail and you get the new quad engine instead (sarcasm?). It just gives other who want to build in sandbox mode more options to build crazier and weirder rockets (I am honestly waiting for someone to use the new parts and build a plane with them...).

Sandbox should stay open ended to allow players the chance to test builds or just have fun, but use career mode for a challenge... once it is finished of course. One thing I have said for a long time about any game; players might think they know what they want, but honestly they will never be happy even if it is in game.

[merendel]

Well said and I prety much agree with you. I find it ironic that people are calling for balanceing parts for sandbox mode in addition to balance for career. Career mode by its nature will need balancing and will have it once it is compleat. Right now its not complete so what balance there is tends to be slightly wacky. Even in its uncompleated state there is a power progression as you climb the tree that is a form of ballance in itself. Eventually we will have to balance costs and such when designing and launching rockets but that critical bit of balance does not exist yet.

Sandbox on the other hand is not ment to be balanced. Its meant to literally be your sandbox. You can build any ship you want, with any parts you want, with no restrictions. The restrictions that would exist in career mode are not pressent in sandbox so some parts will feel inferior to others. That does not mean the newer and stronger parts need to be nerfed, it just means you decided to play in the mode that lacks the restrictions that would make the smaller parts more attractive. Complaining about that is like complaining that the light bulb made the oil lamp obsolete. That oil lamp might be attractive if you have insufficient electricity to run the lightbulb (career mode) but is pointless when you have unlimited power (sandbox) aside from aesthetic reasons.

[FITorion]

I'm playing through career with ARM now.

The SLS 2 engine liquid booster is unlocked at the same time as the mainsail. It's more powerful and more efficient ... this means I have not used the mainsail at all.

Now the mainsail can have a stage below it and the 2 engine SLS can't... but I only would use a mainsail for the first stage anyway... so that doesn't come into play.

I haven't gone out to an asteroid yet... I do have the claw. I could see maybe using the mainsail on my asteroid moving ship if I tried it right now. But I suspect I'll be doing research and getting the even better engines before I head out to an asteroid.

So my point it I think the new SLS parts should be moved to later in the tech tree so the earlier parts see some use before being made obsolete...

[GusTurbo]

You have said it better than I could, and this logic is very accurate, the real SLS system is about the same size as the Saturn V but twice as powerful last time I checked.

The first proposed SLS variant is actually less powerful than the Saturn V in terms of thrust and total payload to orbit.

Anyway, I hope we get money in career mode, because the current science system just doesn't make a lot of sense. Cost would balance these powerful new engines very well.

[vexx32]

No, no, this simply won't do. Please keep all discussion of the development of KSP to the appropriate section. General Discussion is explicitly for topics that don't fit anywhere else. (Moved to Development Discussion)

[Woopert]

The first proposed SLS variant is actually less powerful than the Saturn V in terms of thrust and total payload to orbit.

Anyway, I hope we get money in career mode, because the current science system just doesn't make a lot of sense. Cost would balance these powerful new engines very well.

Actually, the SLS Block I has more liftoff thrust than the Saturn V but "only" (because 70 metric tons is still a lot!) can bring 70 metric tons of stuff into orbit.

[GusTurbo]

Ah, you're right. It turns out I was looking at the thrust just for the SRBs on the SLS. That's pretty crazy!

[Woopert]

Yeah, I remember reading about it, but had to do a quick calculation to make sure I was right.

I do like these suggestions, though.

[MKI]

No, no, this simply won't do. Please keep all discussion of the development of KSP to the appropriate section. General Discussion is explicitly for topics that don't fit anywhere else. (Moved to Development Discussion)

Sorry thought i was in the development section.

I'm playing through career with ARM now.

The SLS 2 engine liquid booster is unlocked at the same time as the mainsail. It's more powerful and more efficient ... this means I have not used the mainsail at all.

Now the mainsail can have a stage below it and the 2 engine SLS can't... but I only would use a mainsail for the first stage anyway... so that doesn't come into play.

I haven't gone out to an asteroid yet... I do have the claw. I could see maybe using the mainsail on my asteroid moving ship if I tried it right now. But I suspect I'll be doing research and getting the even better engines before I head out to an asteroid.

So my point it I think the new SLS parts should be moved to later in the tech tree so the earlier parts see some use before being made obsolete...

What if the boosters are 4 times more expensive when prices come out? Thats the point of the thread, balance wise YES the mainsail isn't good. But overall balance when it comes to price will keep the mainsail useful as a cheaper variant of the bigger boosters. The fuel boosters will defiantly be more expensive. How much, I do not know.

I understand the career and tech tree justifying the new parts but what I don't understand is why only 3.75m parts can be efficient and powerful? If we get suitable upgrades to 1.25 and 2.5m parts as the tech tree progresses I'll be happy simply because I prefer to always use the smallest rocket possible for the task.

Maybe in time such things may come forth. Parts such as the LV-N already fill some of the said niches, but talking about making more OP smaller parts that fit at the end of the tech tree already sort of exist. Take the Raiper for example, the advance tech is at the end of the tree and makes building SSTO's much easier(in some cases).

PS. Im glad the K-Drive still works after the joint changes lol!

I agree with that except on the grounds for sandbox, that should be up to the player to decide what they want to run on their ships not forced by Squad or others (unless I misread something). As far as I can tell the new parts are not forcing player to use just those parts, unless there is a bug in sandbox mode when you click on a main sail and you get the new quad engine instead (sarcasm?). It just gives other who want to build in sandbox mode more options to build crazier and weirder rockets (I am honestly waiting for someone to use the new parts and build a plane with them...).

Sandbox should stay open ended to allow players the chance to test builds or just have fun, but use career mode for a challenge... once it is finished of course. One thing I have said for a long time about any game; players might think they know what they want, but honestly they will never be happy even if it is in game.

Sandbox will stay as it currently is. Do anything as you want sort of deal. Im sure Squad will not change sandbox besides adding more things to make it better. A lot of flak about the new parts is how they don't fit in sandbox. Realistically if you cared about efficiency in sandbox, the new parts are a must have for any launcher. Which is why a lot of people complain about the part balance. I say the part balance shouldn't matter later, when career is the primary mode.

Im not suggesting anything changes besides peoples view about the new parts and their effect on the gameplay. Sandbox day's of being the only child are over. Its time to start investing in Career mode. The sheer strength of the SLS system is a prime example of that, it makes the old balance of sandbox bogus. But will keep things much more interesting in Career once more of the system is implemented.

As far as timing goes it shouldn't matter that these parts could of arrived later rather than sooner. As they do distrupt the games sandbox, and career mode isn't exactly "ready" for them to be balanced. But squad just worked with NASA, to make an OFFICIAL remake of the SLS system. Why question that?

Edited April 8, 2014 by MKI

[Dodgey]

One, of the main points in the sandbox balance argument, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75332-Can-both-Career-Mode-and-Sandbox-Mode-be-balanced-simultaneously, is that in career mode there are more variables that could be used to balance career mode than there are to balance sandbox. The premise is that you could balance sandbox using the limited variables, then after that use the extra variables in career mode to balance it then.

The argument that the yet to be economics will balance the engines doesn't make any sense as we have no idea how economics will be implemented.

I don't think that the Rapier can be considered OP, the fact that when it was added that there was a pretty even split between people saying it was OP and people who were saying it was UP says that it was properly balanced.

At this current point in time the end of career is functionally the same as sandbox, and seeing as the developers have stated that the three planned currencies (science, money and reputation) will be interchangeable with each other I think it is fair to say that there won't be a major game limiting shortage of any of them. But because we have received no real information about the economics of the game this is pure speculation, as is any argument that pertains to the economics of the game. Because of this I think that it is fair to assume that once you finish the tech tree it will be functionally similar to sandbox, meaning that sandbox balance is not bogus.

The fact that the real SLS will be powerful doesn't mean anything, the game is balanced due to gameplay, not realism, hence the ION engine. You can't argue that the engines are okay because they are realistic, and at the same time say the ION engine is all good.

Finally people need to get the idea that just because I play sandbox I don't want to be challenged. I want to be challenged by the universe, this includes the physical attributes of the engines.

As I said, there are more variables that you could use to balance career mode, than there are for sandbox. As such you can balance sandbox one way, and rebalance it using the other variables for career mode.

[merendel]

Finally people need to get the idea that just because I play sandbox I don't want to be challenged. I want to be challenged by the universe, this includes the physical attributes of the engines.

As I said, there are more variables that you could use to balance career mode, than there are for sandbox. As such you can balance sandbox one way, and rebalance it using the other variables for career mode.

You could just choose not to use the new engiens unless you actualy need that much thrust to deliver the payload to orbit.

No mater how you slice it sandbox is going to have access to every engine from the word go. Career there are limitations preventing the use of the best engines from the beginning. As you climb the tech tree you have access to better and better stuff. Presumably in its final form cost will also play a role as a limiting factor but that is pure speculation at this stage. Sandbox has no gating, presumably cost wont be a factor either (otherwise that would be a significant divergence from the standard usage of sandbox game mode).

You'd pretty much need every engine to be virtually identical to not end up with a "Best" engine and hence the on everybody uses in sandbox. Oh you can have some variation to a point such as Ion vs LV-N vs Mainsail where each is good at a specific task such as long range light probe vs long range general vs heavy launch. However within those categories you will always have a best option, the one someone would have to be stupid not to use unless outside limitations (selfimposed or otherwise) prevented you from doing so. The only way to avoid that is to have them all be exactly the same within category, bigger ones simply being scaled up versions of the smaller ones. On the flip side that level of uniformity prety much removes the point of a tech tree. Whats the point of advancing your engine tech if you dont get better engines? If there are better engines how do you not have a "Best" one when you go into sandbox and remove all the game enforced limitations on what you can use?

[MKI]

@dodgey

The idea of changing the engines to "balance" sandbox until the economics or further balance factors are implemented is sort of a waste of time. To balance the engines only for the dev's to later change them because of further changes of the game are highly unlikely. I personally do not like the idea of a restrictive sandbox at all. Any good sandbox game gives you everything, even if that means giving you the OP parts from the start. I do not really see any balancing factor that matters for parts not designed for sandbox in the first place. The shell shock of having OP parts in the first place is the main thing the community needs to get their heads around. I do not see a career working without some stronger parts at the end, it would be very much like career mode now. Boring and autonomous, a sandbox game where you need to unlock sandbox.

I never said the Rapier was OP, it was only advance tech. Its basis as the only two style engine makes it unique. I personally do not believe it to be OP, but it is unique very much like the LV-N. It created its own niche. You could easily call if op because of its ability though. Now a prime example of an actual OP part is the 48-7s. These should be nerfed, as they outperform most other engines when used in bunches. As far as balance in concerned making the best engine the smallest and most part intensive one doesn't make much practical or game play sense. (my cpu cries)

Its just as valid to assume the end game will function as sandbox, as it would be a difficult space program or somewhere inbetween(what i assume is going to happen). The only issue with thinking the parts should be nerfed is why nerf them now if we might need to un-nerf them later? Sandbox isn't designed to be challenging, unless you make it challenging. So taking these parts effectiveness in sandbox (its good) does not imply they will be good in Career and need to be "balanced" with sandbox balances, IE less thrust.

Finally the idea of being challenged by the universe is fine for a only sandbox based game. But career mode is going to be the mainstay. There are multiple indications this is going to happen, regardless of how difficult career mode will be compared to Sandbox. Hell the game is Kerbal Space Program, both modes have kerbals, space but only career is anything like a legitimate program.(it will only get better)

The fear of Career mode becoming the mainstay, and sandbox becoming "easier" by lacking some limitations is exactly what this thread is about. Its how things are changing and Sandbox is going to become the second fiddle. The threads about the SLS changes are all rooted in that fear. The fear of change.

Yes the SLS parts are OP in sandbox, but they wont be balanced for there. They will be balanced for Career.

Edited April 8, 2014 by MKI

[FITorion]

Making the boosters a lot more expensive is one way to deal with it... I guess.

They haven't given any specifics for the possible implementations of money in KSP yet... It's one of the features I've always been worried about... because there are so many ways to do it poorly... and I don't know exactly how you would do it well. I have ideas... but they aren't likely to go with anything I'd suggest... And I'm worried they'll go with something I don't like... and make career not fun for me anymore.

I would not have you purchase parts. I would have missions have a cost that the rocket you use to complete it comes under. In this way you could launch over and over again attempting to complete a mission. Or you could ignore missions and go about as usual... doing your own thing.

I would not have there be a money counter that each launch ate away at until there was nothing left and you couldn't afford to launch anything anymore. The key to this game is the freedom crash over and over learning as you go and for that not to adversely effect your progress. An economic system can destroy this freedom.

Some people want that. I don't. It's an opinion and I fear it's a minority opinion... I hope the economic system they end up doing doesn't radically alter the feel of the game... but I worry that it will.

[MKI]

Making the boosters a lot more expensive is one way to deal with it... I guess.

They haven't given any specifics for the possible implementations of money in KSP yet... It's one of the features I've always been worried about... because there are so many ways to do it poorly... and I don't know exactly how you would do it well. I have ideas... but they aren't likely to go with anything I'd suggest... And I'm worried they'll go with something I don't like... and make career not fun for me anymore.

I would not have you purchase parts. I would have missions have a cost that the rocket you use to complete it comes under. In this way you could launch over and over again attempting to complete a mission. Or you could ignore missions and go about as usual... doing your own thing.

I would not have there be a money counter that each launch ate away at until there was nothing left and you couldn't afford to launch anything anymore. The key to this game is the freedom crash over and over learning as you go and for that not to adversely effect your progress. An economic system can destroy this freedom.

Some people want that. I don't. It's an opinion and I fear it's a minority opinion... I hope the economic system they end up doing doesn't radically alter the feel of the game... but I worry that it will.

There will always be sandbox.

Possibly the Contract system might give you what your looking for. I feel the same about how there are many ways of doing things, and also many ways of doing things wrong. I personally believe it wont be structured beyond a few things. Giving structure in some places and not as much in others.

I do feel there has to be a total cost counter to make SSTO's viable against Launchers.

Beyond that its up to the dev's to build career as well as they did the base game. Give freedom and multiple ways of doing things, but throwing in some hard-line restrictions to make the game more than just a sandbox. For instance the next update will implement a game over screen, from what the Dev's have said.(so no more free kerbal kills lol)

[Dodgey]

Ok MK1, sorry for misinterpreting your comment about the rapier. I think you must be understanding me, I'm not saying that it should be balanced for sandbox now and rebalanced later, I'm saying balance it for both sandbox and career mode. I don't think anyone will doubt that there are more balancing points in career mode than sandbox (see here for more information). Because of this fact I say sandbox could be balanced to the limited variables that are available to it, and career mode further balanced using the extra variables to scale the difficulty however it needs to be scaled. This would keep both sides happy. If there is a way to balance both sandbox and career mode would you object it?

Merendel, when you compare all of the engines to each other, excluding obvious out liners (LV-N, ION ect), there is an obvious TWR/ISP curve set by the previous engines, the new SLS engines are way off of that curve.

[MKI]

Ok MK1, sorry for misinterpreting your comment about the rapier. I think you must be understanding me, I'm not saying that it should be balanced for sandbox now and rebalanced later, I'm saying balance it for both sandbox and career mode. I don't think anyone will doubt that there are more balancing points in career mode than sandbox (see here for more information). Because of this fact I say sandbox could be balanced to the limited variables that are available to it, and career mode further balanced using the extra variables to scale the difficulty however it needs to be scaled. This would keep both sides happy. If there is a way to balance both sandbox and career mode would you object it?

Merendel, when you compare all of the engines to each other, excluding obvious out liners (LV-N, ION ect), there is an obvious TWR/ISP curve set by the previous engines, the new SLS engines are way off of that curve.

I think meredel was just referring to those engines as examples of different engines. Making the engines balanced to the curve of other engines is OK and all. It would make both sandbox and career balanced except one issue. Making them balanced would mean they aren't much better than the other parts. It would also limit the ways of playing the game in career. If the SLS parts are only marginal more effectient then they would only be marginally more expensive. Getting them would just be another step up in capabilities. Even currently having completely balanced options in career mode is somewhat boring. I have never used mainsails in career mainly because they are one of the last things, and all the other engines can more or less cover the heavy lifter engine.

Making a balanced engine in general isn't very rewarding as a goal. You can make it only slightly more balanced but it also means you will have to make it only slightly less financially expensive. If it were to stay overpowered it would give a career player two distinct ways to play career once they get at the end of the tech tree. Invest into something better, but more expensive or use less effective but cheaper launch methods. I do not see this working with only marginally better parts.

That's the thing about power creep, if it doesn't exist you limit gameplay options and make the game boring. If you implement it to hard it might make things to "easy". But the creep in this game is only at the end of career, for end game and player efficiency if they have better funding. This is a basic concept that is common sense so having these engines this powerful would warranty much higher prices in career.

Giving to much attention so the sandbox aspect of the game isn't doing the game much justice. Balancing these engines just so the mainsails and orange tanks don't lose their luster will hinder the development of the game.

The community had a similar reaction to the rapier until they realized how it wasn't that overpowered against other SSTO engines and designs.

This time the changes are overpowered, but for good reason. Not for sandbox, but to open more options in career.

Again this is going off 1 assumption on the future and that is funding will be significant in buying parts. Even if there is a lot of leeway finatially the statement still stands on how it would make the game more interesting if there is more variety.

Edited April 8, 2014 by MKI

[Red Iron Crown]

Could just make the SLS parts fit the TWR-Isp curve, then make them cheaper on a per-unit-thrust basis. Sandbox players are happy because the engines are on the balance curve. Career players get a cheaper way to put mass in orbit (in addition to the larger payloads possible with bigger, higher TWR parts).

It is wrong to think that just because a part is on the same balance curve that it adds no new capabilities or isn't better for some tasks.

[xrayfishx]

I'm not going to write all this again, I'll just quote myself.

Here are some common pro-current stats arguments:

"Try capturing an E-class with less powerful parts!"

E-class is the biggest class there is. It makes sense for capturing that to be a challenge even for someone who has put 2000h into KSP.

"SQUAD wants us to focus on what to do in orbit rather than getting there!"

Still, I shouldn't be able to create a single-stage-to-Tylo-landing (possibly even Moho) craft that doesn't even have to be refueled. It should still be a challenge to get past LKO or at least Kerbin's SOI.

"The tech tree balances it!"

I don't even understand where SQUAD wants to take the tech progression. In my opinion it should be either

a) I can create huge rockets pretty much from the beginning, but it becomes progressively easier so that once I got the grip on getting to orbit, it quickly becomes trivial and focuses me on doing things in orbit... or

I can only create small rockets and then progressively create bigger ones as I advance. Getting to orbit will remain somewhat of a challenge and a part of the mission, but the mission can be bigger.

These are SQUAD's options for a tech tree that introduces me to the game, like a tutorial (which is what they stated they want it to be). So far they have been going with B, but that would mean parts that are balanced more like KW/Nova.

If they went with A, they would have to create both efficient and inefficient engines of all sizes and introduce them from least efficient to most efficient, not by size and then those engines would make sense, if they had inefficient counterparts.

"Money will balance it!"

As it is, I can pretty much make up with fuel costs.

"You could edit the parts if you don't like them!"

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and poop a better argument than this.

Why have balanced parts that you can edit to be OP if you can have OP parts that you can edit to be balanced? Makes sense, doesn't it?

I will eventually take that time and edit them. Also I will edit ion engines to have a thrust of 0.1kN and better ISP. The difference between the two is that the ion engine's thrust was something that made most people never use it, therefore this being OP is justified, while there is no excuse for OP lifter parts.

After they introduce money (probably in 0.24), they should make an update solely focused on balancing everything. The longer they wait with that, the more difficult it will become, until they decide to do it only enough that it's kinda ok and leave it at that, simply because they don't want it to take endless amounts of time.

Edited April 8, 2014 by xrayfishx

[Rakaydos]

Unless repeatedly spawnig capsules to rack up "unspent budget" is their idea of a good time, I doubt the developers will add bugetary rollovers. And unless timewarping for a few years doing nothig is also appealing, I doubt there will a "money over time" system.

Without them, there is no reason to make a vessel "smaller" than your budget will allow. Therefore, the Cost/effectiveness ratio of parts will deturmine what is best used in carear. (for instance, I doubt we'll see many Orange tanks, if the half-sized fuel cans are still a quarter of the price for half the fuel)

The best approach, IMO, to pricing parts is to reinforce part efficency. It should be cheaper to buy an orange tank than 2 oildrum fuel cans, for instance, but a single oildrum fuel can should still be significantly cheaper than an orange tank, if you dont need the extra fuel.

This approch, however, means OP parts are still OP. Conversly, balancing for sandbox will remain balanced for carear.

[Red Iron Crown]

Unless repeatedly spawing capsules to rack up "unspent budget" is their idea of a good time, I doubt the developers will add budgetary rollovers.

I'm having a hard time imagining a monetary system where the money saved by building a more efficient craft is not carried over to the next mission. Spawning capsules would just be spending money on missions that achieve no objectives.

[Rakaydos]

I'm having a hard time imagining a monetary system where the money saved by building a more efficient craft is not carried over to the next mission. Spawning capsules would just be spending money on missions that achieve no objectives.

What about one craft, one launch that accomplishes multiple missions? Also the more efficent design can be used at a lower budget level (budget sold for Reputation and tech), opening more missions (for more bugetary opjectives) and different parts.