The "Could Be" Resource System for KSP

[Caelib]

So, I've been thinking a lot about how the old resource system was scrapped and what "could be" in the future of KSP. Personally, I think all that is really needed is parts/equipment that can mine/harvest frozen water and convert it to fuel (among other things). For example, here is a real-world info-graphic (notably the bottom, left corner):

NASA has already built the technology that separates the molecules.

Thoughts?

NOTE - the image above if from this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29334645

[RSwordsman]

I like it, but right now I'm happy with Kethane and Karbonite. Exclusively mining asteroids means you'd first have to capture them.

[swiftgates24]

I like it, but right now I'm happy with Kethane and Karbonite. Exclusively mining asteroids means you'd first have to capture them.

It doesn't have to be just for asteroids.

[xtoro]

Exclusively mining asteroids means you'd first have to capture them.

This. I watched a documentary that talked about mining asteroids and using them for refueling stations. But it would take a ton of resources to find the right asteroid, get to it, capture it, and change its course so that it doesn't continue its orbit to Jupiter, or wherever it goes. And that would probably have a small window of opportunity to accomplish it as well, so it would be difficult to plan.

Also, it would need to be in a parked orbit where it would be convenient for space craft to refuel. Not necessarily around the Earth, but around Mars would be perfect for Martian exploration and possible colonization. But again, huge amount of resources just to do it.

[Caelib]

It doesn't have to be just for asteroids.

Correct, there's frozen water in many, many places ... such as the polar regions of the Moon and Mars. Some moons of Saturn and Jupiter, including a large portion of Saturn's "ring" material.

[Kegereneku]

Three things come to my mind :

1) I do not want to grind asteroid resources for money

2) Asteroid mining is unlikely to ever be "profitable" in the way our market work (mining the ocean seabed would be easier)

3) I'm still okay with the concept being added to KSP as long as it is optional.

ISRU for refueling however is a must have.

[Laie]

Three things come to my mind :

1) I do not want to grind asteroid resources for money

[...]

ISRU for refueling however is a must have.

The OP seems to be mostly about that part -- at any rate, he pointed out that you should pay special attention to the lower-left corner of that infopic. And ISRU will come:

Deep Space Refueling.- We’re aware there is one big end-game mechanic missing in the game: Being able to refuel a vessel once you’re out in Space. This is what we originally set out to achieve with the old Resource Mining plan and saw ourselves running into a very tedious dead-end. The Resources system was flawed because it overcomplicated accomplishing a basic need: To be able to find something out in space which can be used to fill up the tanks again. That’s the essence of it, and we don’t need 40+ single-purpose parts and 9 different resources to do it. In fact, all that complexity was going to be very effective at making sure most attempts to build a refueling outpost would fail. We are now planning a new, more elegant system, which hopefully will add a new, fun element of gameplay, as well as the massive boost to continuity this feature implies.

I like it, but right now I'm happy with Kethane and Karbonite. Exclusively mining asteroids means you'd first have to capture them.

In last week's squadcast it was said that refueling will be tied to asteroids. I suspect that asteroid capture will become much more fashionable in the future. And probably a lot easier, too: you can make the necessary fuel from the asteroid itself, after all.

If you need 90% of an asteroid's fuel just in order to capture it, the venture will be pointless; if catching one pet rock, once, will solve all fuel problems forever, that would be silly.

[CaptRobau]

In last week's squadcast it was said that refueling will be tied to asteroids. I suspect that asteroid capture will become much more fashionable in the future. And probably a lot easier, too: you can make the necessary fuel from the asteroid itself, after all.

If you need 90% of an asteroid's fuel just in order to capture it, the venture will be pointless; if catching one pet rock, once, will solve all fuel problems forever, that would be silly.

I think they also talked about there being more place where asteroids spawn, such as an asteroid belt between Duna and Jool and with some even being used to represent the tiny moons (that are still being found to this day, as they're so small). The latter would make refueling around Jool perhaps even easier than around Kerbin.

[Red Iron Crown]

I really hope ISRU is not asteroids-only. Harvesting from the surface of at least some bodies would be good, too.

[Laie]

I really hope ISRU is not asteroids-only. Harvesting from the surface of at least some bodies would be good, too.

Asteroid-only solves a number of problems, though. Like, where are the goodies and how does the player find them?

BTW: if fuel creation was water-dependent, some misers would surely tap Kerbin's oceans and recover their own fuel on the runway.

[Tuareg]

I really hope ISRU is not asteroids-only. Harvesting from the surface of at least some bodies would be good, too.

isru from asteroids will be pointless...

[Red Iron Crown]

isru from asteroids will be pointless...

....because?

I don't necessarily disagree, but you haven't given any useful reasons why you think so.

[Tuareg]

....because?

I don't necessarily disagree, but you haven't given any useful reasons why you think so.

yep you are right, and it wasnt nice. well, what i think is there are 2 options if the asteroids will spawn in the current system (aka orbiting sun):

1: they will be too big to change their orbit - in this case chasing them down, refueling on them and moving on will cost so many resources that it will not be worth going after them

2: they will be small enough to be moved to orbit - in this case everybody will build the ship around asteroids and you have a mobile fuel mine.

to make it any useful they would need to create asteroid fields bond to planets - in this case the planets which doesnt have an asteroid field and the moons will fall out of the mining and refueling (however its just my guess squad wouldnt place asteroids around every planet)

having actual surface mining (like ice around poles, or even methane in swamps) would be far more interesting

the only one positive side of having mines on asteroids is that its a lot easier to dock to an asteroid mine than landing on a fix position on a planet

what i fear is that the entire thing will be solved with one single modul. you put a claw on it, attach to the asteroid put a fueltank on its other side and it will refill the fueltank by the time... thats it. i hope im wrong but this is what i think.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Tuareg

[Laie]

1: they will be too big to change their orbit - in this case chasing them down, refueling on them and moving on will cost so many resources that it will not be worth going after them

2: they will be small enough to be moved to orbit - in this case everybody will build the ship around asteroids and you have a mobile fuel mine.

Combine 1&2: the big rocks will also give you the big fuel you need to move them. It would be neat if they lost weight while you deplete them, too -- though it's probably not easy to visibly shrink them while they are "docked" to another vessel.

Talking about depletion: I hope/expect that asteroids will be finite, because if a single rock was an infinite source of fuel... see your own point #2.

to make it any useful they would need to create asteroid fields bond to planets - in this case the planets which doesnt have an asteroid field and the moons will fall out of the mining and refueling (however its just my guess squad wouldnt place asteroids around every planet)

I suggest you read the other posts in this thread.

what i fear is that the entire thing will be solved with one single modul. you put a claw on it, attach to the asteroid put a fueltank on its other side and it will refill the fueltank by the time... thats it. i hope im wrong but this is what i think.

Your fear may come true. The devs have explained that they don't want to have a large number of resources and equipment. And if you think about it, a single module would be all it needs. Where is the gameplay benefit to having a variety of drill bits or converter modules?

[Tuareg]

Your fear may come true. The devs have explained that they don't want to have a large number of resources and equipment. And if you think about it, a single module would be all it needs. Where is the gameplay benefit to having a variety of drill bits or converter modules?

it could give to the endplay. there are only a few things you can do in this game and even those are like, ok, ive done it. whats now?

like build bases around stuff. i knew it will NOT happen but somewhere deep i was hoping that maybe science will give a reason to build big ships and bases to play with them. now it happened as i was afraid of. it didnt give any reason.

i have bases all around the kerbol system but for what? sometimes i can take a look on them and ave how cool they are. and? thats it? no use at all.

mining could be an other reason (to be honest it could even be combined with science) but it will not. there is just no reason to play this game atm. now after they somewhat sorted the science i've unlocked the entire tree in like 2 days but it didnt give anything to the game other than those 2 days. (and as they messed it up it was more of an annoyance than joy. like on the planets surface you could use science rovers to explore but no, the docking and the wheels were right at the very end of the techtree... the science lab is pointless... should i continue?)

[Red Iron Crown]

Honestly I wouldn't mind if the implementation of ISRU used a single part that just filled the tanks of the attached vessel, just like transferring fuel. A multistep process might be a bit more realistic but doesn't add much to gameplay.

Resources available from an asteroid should definitely be finite; furthermore I think the mass fraction of the asteroid should be significantly worse than a fuel tank to sidestep building ships around them. Maybe no more than 50% of the asteroid's mass can be turned into propellant?

[Laie]

it could give to the endplay. there are only a few things you can do in this game and even those are like, ok, ive done it. whats now?

Well, in that respect, KSP is entirely too realistic.

Just think of the real moon landings. They went there, chipped off some rocks, went home. What else should they have done? Putting up a proper lunar colony was out of the question IRL, and truth be told, it makes no sense in KSP either: the main benefit, gameplay-wise, would be to give you something else you could do and strike off the list. Even if you went so far as to allow mining and workshops and everything that's necessary to construct spaceships on the surface of the Mun -- what are you supposed to do with them that you couldn't do just as well (and a lot easier) with Kerbin-launched vessels?

The end of KSP is when you've been everywhere and have done everything. You may come back in order to do it again, and this time do it right, or better, or in some particular way. But a serious space colonization effort would require an entirely different game underneath it.

[Tuareg]

Well, in that respect, KSP is entirely too realistic.

Just think of the real moon landings. They went there, chipped off some rocks, went home. What else should they have done? Putting up a proper lunar colony was out of the question IRL, and truth be told, it makes no sense in KSP either: the main benefit, gameplay-wise, would be to give you something else you could do and strike off the list. Even if you went so far as to allow mining and workshops and everything that's necessary to construct spaceships on the surface of the Mun -- what are you supposed to do with them that you couldn't do just as well (and a lot easier) with Kerbin-launched vessels?

The end of KSP is when you've been everywhere and have done everything. You may come back in order to do it again, and this time do it right, or better, or in some particular way. But a serious space colonization effort would require an entirely different game underneath it.

and you want only that much? do you think that will entertain casual players? to build a lunar base could be like getting to the next level but for sure to do that you would need to do a lot. building a game is like putting up aims the player can work towards. launching your next gen rockets from mun would let you to avoid fighting kerbins atmosphere and gravity, but to do so you would need to 1: find the researches 2: bring equipment to mun 3: build mines 4: find a good launchpoint 5: bring materials to the mun 6: build a colony with a launchpad 7: build a factory 8: start launching your munar rockets to move on to other planets... this is how games work and what is missing from ksp. there are 10 some target planets, build rockets fly to there end of game...

[Laie]

there are 10 some target planets, build rockets fly to there end of game...

Exactly.

It would be nice if the game could turn into a SimCity-like builder thing at some point (or Dwarf Fortress, Civilization, what-have-you). But just think about what that entails; a few or even many additions to KSP-as-we-know-it won't get you there.

Requiring munar assembly would only postpone the end of game: you'd have to tick off a few more points of the list before you got there, but get there you will. I claim that the game would not be better if it was necessary to assemble vessels on the mun. And if it's optional... well, then it would be only one more thing you may do if you feel like it. Not that it would be a bad thing, not at all -- but it wouldn't turn KSP into a builder game.

KSP is quite a sandboxy thing. You're given a whole solar system to play in and and lot of stuff to mess around with. The game is over when you become bored with it. More stuff and a larger system will always be nice, but deliver diminishing returns: you may get bored with the game long before you visited every planet and tried every toy.

[Tuareg]

Exactly.

And if it's optional... well, then it would be only one more thing you may do if you feel like it.

I think this is the point of the games. do things if you like. but in ksp there is nothing to do other than build tensome rockets and send them away...

Exactly.KSP is quite a sandboxy thing. You're given a whole solar system to play in and and lot of stuff to mess around with.

the whole solar system adds the possibility of build 10 rockets and you can visit everything... whats are the lots of thing to mess with? cos unfortunately i've missed them.

most people dontlike repeat/rinse like gameplay. they need aims and rewards. in ksp none of these exists. what dou you think there are all the mods out for the game? ask ppl here on the forum to play this game stock for a week. they will laugh at you. playing? this? stock?

i dont want to turn it into a simcity and giving modules and functions for the building wouldnt be difficult at all. could be easily done in ksp. all are actually already done in the form of mods, they would just need to look around. there are planetary base buildings, there are minings (not perfect for casual players, too much micro managemet but it could be reduced greatly), there are communication mods (ppl will not launch satelites just for the shake of launching, they need a reason) etc. i have a cool munar base, i will never visit them because there is no reason. getting fuel there would give a reason... if there yould be specific things/resources on planets or moons that would give reasons to go there... like to unlock giga big rockets you need pampurampulus metal and you can only find it on the 3rd moon of the 4th planet. that would give a reason. and would make this crap physics simulator a game (yes its crap, it has so many fault based on a physics engine made for graphics and not physics simulation, its incredible).

[kStrout]

I like the idea of an asteroid belt in the same orbit as dres, in real life there are millions of asteroids in the asteroid belt larger than 1km. I think that the sizes of current asteroids in the game are to small to track every single one if you are in an asteroid belt. I think that in the asteroid belt, at least in ksp, you should probably have an average of 5 or so asteroids within 100km. So instead of needing to seek out a particular asteroid, you would mine one, and then move on to the next.

[ringerc]

To reduce repetitiveness I'd rather see more focus on things like fault simulation. It's one thing to design the perfect ship and perfect mission. It's another thing entirely to get it there on budget and without any lowest-bidder parts bringing the whole thing to grief, leaving your valiant engineer kerbal half way to Mun trying to fix the engine for the retrograde insertion burn.

(Higher difficulties only, of course).

Your complaint seems to be that it's all too like reality. Why do we send rovers to Mars? Because we can. Because it's cool. It's interesting. We might learn stuff.

I'd like to see that "learn stuff" part expanded over time - cool planet surfaces, stuff to find, lightweight solar fliers to launch and build, moons to explore.