Kegereneku

I think the "over time" problem refer specifically to those possibility of "additional game time dependent mechanics". The logic often heard being that if one only need 10 days to do an experiment/scan he will just timewarp through it, thereby making the mechanic "meaningless" as well as tedious. It can also pose problem if money is involved. So it would be interesting to know if/how the development team intend to deal with the relation ship between game-time and player-time. - Does nothing happen unless you focus on it ? - Or can you do work to set up an experiment and get the reward when finished ? (adding more possibility)

It may surprise people, but I've never believed they would introduce the "ship building" type of resources, and I sincerely don't think KSP have any use for that. (edit : aside from fuel making I mean) Space Exploration is a matter way to serious, hard, and dangerous to just be a matter of mining and selling stuff. (there's no way to make it economically viable anyway) So I really wouldn't be surprised if the "Tycoon" things was only a way to attract more people than if they sold the game as "secure a budget to explore hard to reachother planet with unmanned rover without meeting a single alien". Considering your list. I think we should just talk of "Progression" rather than "empire building". Put aside the 2 others planned mechanic "Money" and "Reputation" the game is primarily driven by what technology you dispose of, and the "end of the game" even if there isn't any could be considered as the point where you got enough science to get all technology and managed to at least send probes to the surface of all planets and moons. The way you do it may lead you to "build an empire"... of support ship and space station, but ultimately they were only a mean to a goal. It's not a matter of exploiting planets. It's not a matter of claiming planets as ours, even if we do plant flag as old conqueror. It's unlikely to be a riveting plot of action, romance and adventure leading to the saving of the world from asteroid then the alien conspiracy who pushed the asteroid, culminating to a final battle against a Kardashev Type II Civilization (google that). So at best it's a question of pride and exploration (or maybe the other way around). Myself I'm an Engineer so I couldn't care less about amassing untold wealth as long as I'm given new technology to toy with and objective to challenge me.

Those 2 cents of yours are very valuable. Maybe KSP should stick to a "no loss outside player focus" model ? This is something the devs answered when asked about "random damage". However, if the outcome is predictable, non-intrusive or do not go-horribly-wrong outside player focus "over time" gameplay should be possible. On the matter, it is fairly common to launch several probes at once for different destination, and I certainly wouldn't like it if the game forced me to finish something or revert to a very earlier state because it didn't allowed me to do two "missions" in the same time frame. If we get a Kerbal-clock-alarm system to plan our maneuver we should just remember to suggest an alert notice in case two thing will require your attention at the same time. A way I've though off to follow that "no loss" rules while creating an incentive to do thing fast is the "fixed-budget" : Each month you are given a non-cumulative budget to launch things. You would increase that budget while doing rewarded stuff. It does however suffer of a problem : - Once docking-ring are available, a player could in theory timewarp indefinitely and assemble fuel tank in orbit for a ship to go anywhere. It could be a viable way of playing but I fear it could interfere with other mechanism meant to create a "progression" in the game.

Very interesting subject, I had a discussion topic about the relevance of time in game mechanic. This is indeed a very important problem as the player can't be everywhere, the game can't simulate everything at once and we can't just keep doing "instant science". Even more crucial that for now nothing really require an automated satellite (or much of a rover). So I'm also interested to know what solution SQUAD is working on. Myself I think it could be done the following way : - The player start an time-based experiment that require an orbit (and energy over time). - The game make an exception and keep calculating energy consumption/generation for this flight (we know it work in timewarp) - Focus isn't required anymore. - The player can learn from the Space Center screen if a probes is "out of energy". (so the player have to make sure the satellite can survive the night) The main concern is how resources intensive it is for the game-engine. (although we can hope that newer version of Unity will solve this) I don't think this is a good idea to risk "bankruptcy" because you can't gather enough "science by time". If the mark is too high it make no difference, if it is too low you can lose the game by warping accidentally (unless you keep the player from warping before he "science something" which would be a nightmare). However I think the player could be denied a budget boost outside the optimal launch window for Duna or another planet. The problem it that is suppose you get budget for specific mission and don't simply use the money to launch fuel tank in orbit. But at that point we could use a third "Reputation" mechanic to balance the system.

Whatever AngelLestat, If you are too self-centered to understand that KSP isn't made to satisfy your fantasy of a so-called "100% realist" game I can't discuss with you. Everything show that KSP isn't built for "realism" but for entertainment (faking-realism). The game using closer approximation of physic than other game doesn't change that fact. "Orbiter" is the best space simulator and yet : The devs created unrealistic Deltaglider, landing base on the Moon and Mars, as well as a menu to teleport you everywhere you want. Why ? Because the author is intelligent and know what mean "acceptable break from reality" as well as the distinction between reality and your wish. This is why when we tell you "There no pseudo-realistic game with FTL" you were supposed to stop thinking only about yourself and understand that some people want KSP level of pseudo-realism and some FTL to either : spice things up, or make possible something that would otherwise be impossible : going to another star system without breaking the game balance. But hey, I bet the ones arguing against-FTL never did the math to make STL possible ! You keep decreasing the odds with a Dwarf system less that 0.1 Kerbolian Ly away. In a few month you'll be suggesting to make the furthest gas giant a red-dwarf of 0.07 or 0.08 solar(kerbol) masses so you can actually go there and explore its moonplanet. At which point we will be telling you (again) how many planets you have to eject of Kerbol orbit to let that star sit here. I swear, the best way to make people accept the FTL break from reality is to show them what it really mean. Last : The Orion project is certainly possible. But it wouldn't be anywhere as efficient as those simplified paper tell you, and it was imagined for interplanetary travel not more. What you want is a Nuclear Fusion Drive and if we make it no-FTL realist, the maximum speed it can bring you to regardless of the number of engine/fuel is 0.15 C, after you'll need antimatter.

tetryds I don't think KSP adding a small FTL thingy to make possible-at-all to go to other star system will affect the game negatively. Common people don't even know how KSP simplify the real physic already, and you now what isn't feasible either ? Humanity sending even a working probes on a one way trip to Alpha Centauri in the next 100 years, plus how long it will take to travel.

Pay attention, you said : Since KSP use STL travel by default, fearing that adding (as in 1 + 1 = 2) a very limited FTL mechanism will negate the rest, can be interpreted as fearing it will unbalance the game (as in make it less fun than before). Next. KSP isn't a realistic space simulator. Simulator aiming for realism don't voluntarily twist the physical property of something they could have made right for fun, just as they don't make up a fictional race of small crazy engineer for gaming purpose. Orbiter is a simulator that aim for realism. KSP is a video game, and as a video game it doesn't matter if it allow FTL in its made-up universe. So at the end arguing against FTL on the basis of "realism" mean arguing against KSP as a whole for being a game. Then you finally recognized that you care about FTL being chosen instead of STL by the devs. If you learned humility instead of trying to outsmart me we could have just skipped to that useful information. (btw : I disagree with your expectation over the rear-work necessary for both). Now : for practical purpose I'm not going to address your Beam-sail idea, just conventional STL. In the mind of most STL interstellar travel would be a continuation of everything they've done until know except with bigger engine, the ability to zoom-out to another star, and hope the math/timewarp make it actually fun. So we can postulate that the STL-travel option could be open by default if the devs ever add a new star system. Meaning, that supposing SQUAD ever [complete the game then] make a new star system. SQUAD developing an interesting FTL gameplay could not bother you in any way. You would just be learning how ridiculously hard it is to reach another star system even with SQUAD shortening distance, making travel time irrelevant, warping reality for convenience, while people who do wanted FTL would have still have fun. This would be win win. The real question is whether or not anti-FTL can accept the idea of FTL being just as fun. AngelLestat you stated your hope of playing a game without any form of FTL even if it obeyed our theoretical model of physics (which is quite young, not perfect and not absolute). Myself I'm thinking to all those who wanted a game with Newtonian physic AND a FTL drive. Who are we to claim their idea is less fun that yours ? Don't rush yourself.

I have never been that interested in the idea of building spacecraft on place using resources and all. Especially since I doubt KSP is shaped right for -or would be interesting with- automatic mining and factory. The last resources system we heard off from SQUAD was only about making fuel in situe and I think it's all we really need : Refueling point for our exploration effort. I really wouldn't see KSP as a resources management game where you sell resources for... what ? As far I know not even a nuclear fusion engine, uranium/blutonium or rare Kerbin metal would make the market profitable. though KSP is a rocketpunk universe so it hardly matter.

You are reaching... - there's case were the two stars are so close that planets orbit both star at once. - and case were the two stars are so far apart that planets can only orbit one of them closely. At best we are talking of micro system, nothing that can accommodate our Solar system. I have yet to hear of a possible binary star system where both stars can retain large planetary system. *Image The case of Alpha Centauri is interesting, but so far we only detected one planet over-heated at 1500°K around star (. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/binary-star-systems-habitable-planets-alien-life_n_2853469.html About the Orion Drive : it was only meant for short interplanetary travel. What you want is an overpowered fusion-drive. I'm not in the mood to do the math right now but for a 0.2 ly transfer I'm pretty sure we are still talking of a mass ratio of 1/20 and more than 50 years of travel. Now that I think about it : If we timewarp 100 years, maybe the Kerbun scientific will invent a genuine FTL drive. Well, apparently Serratus don't mind the way you said it, so nevermind. Then it would be (1) to (3) : - You fear that it will "replace" STL as an interstellar-drive if another star system is ever introduced. - You fear to not be able of pretend to play a "game with real physsics". But no, you aren't playing a simulator meant for "real physics" but a game mimicking it please accept it and move on. - but worse, you act like it would somehow even make interplanetary-STL travel disappear. That last one being what many of pro-FTL are feed up with. The inability of anti-FTL to even consider compromise. No, actually you barely ever answered anything as you kept evading critic. It was so nonconstructive I shouldn't even talk to or about you again.

I haven't seen anybody here against "on-rail systems or physsics approximation", even less "hard against". There's no contradiction in wanting to eventually break monotony with FTL. Especially when devs and modder said that KSP would barely support further range because of limitation in the game engines. Really "we" should be asking why some people are against FTL so hardly ? It's easy to just "dislike" the idea of FTL, but pretending it would make them sick ? Ruin KSP forever ? Please ! - It is fear that if there's other star system it would be chosen and be ridiculously easy ? - Fear that they couldn't pretend anymore to play a "difficult realistic space simulator" ? - Fear that it would unbalance the game to the point of making even maneuver-node useless ? - Fear that it would somehow engage KSP on a downhill road to Cheesy-SF ? Myself I DON'T even WANT FTL you know. But it sound like a funnier alternative. What the hell would be so fun in an STL interstellar transfer ? - Building in orbit framerate-killing rocket with a mass/fuel ratio of 1/100 and a peak acceleration of 0.5m/s ? - Timewarping for hours ? - Accelerating to 0.2C for days in physical warp ? timewarp for hours then decelerate for as long hoping you didn't overshoot ? - Discover that you forgot to bring something and must start all over ? - Have the game automatize most of it or allow you to build a new space center there ? overpowering some engine and lessening distance won't do miracle. You want Solar-sail or Beam-sail ? (like AngelLestat) See this or all he said page before.

Apparently we launched a new STL vs FTL war. Frankly you shouldn't bother with it because both points are moots. The Devs are obviously not going to add FTL just as they said they wouldn't add redundant star system unless they finished the game. At which point Reality will barely matter since STL make it just as impossible as FTL, so they'll likely go for something fun to play and that the game engine can handle. To quote myself : Remember that interstellar travel is just an longer, unforgiving and more tedious interplanetary travel. So nothing wrong with a fun alternative.

Ah yes, I support this suggestion. (Kerbonaute Français ?) But know that you should be able to switch to qwerty using alt+shift.

I don't get why so many people want a new star system or insist it's planned like a real feature... It's on the "do no suggest list" for many reasons. For now we barely have anything to do on each planet, and only the challenge as a motivation. Just so you know : A properly implemented FTL mechanic wouldn't get in the way of anything. but there's a lot of problems with trying to allow interstellar travel in KSP in a "classical way" : - KSP's physic engine precision is finite, same as Timewarp. - Any engine able to accelerate meaningful payload to 0.2C will make interplanetary travel easy (including beamed-sail), and orbital maneuver trivial. - KSP is not a simulator. It work on magic to allow "rocket-punk" gameplay, technology evolve like a tree and defy what is feasible, engine can be throttled from 0 to 100% ...etc... I could continue for hours until FTL will become more logical than conventional engine. - KSP is a game, it need to be fun above anything else and career will be built around gameplay not reality. And that's putting aside that in the real world our physic models have and will, change radically in the future, keeping the potential to "allow" FTL travel. So there's really no reason to be sick of seeing an exotic gameplay as an end-game feature to keep the game fun.

I shall remind people that in a simulated and fictional universe like in the Kerbal Space Program game, you can make up rules to make FTL as fun as wanted. KSP already work on magic right now. Planet's mass are unrealistic, thrust doesn't vary with pressure, engines are nerfed, reaction-wheel never lock or need thrust-reboot, life-support is infinite, 90% of all parts resist reentry heat, high pressure doesn't matter Not that I'm advocating for FTL drive, I would be disappointed if it came before : - more realistic atmosphere - more developed resources-system and In-Situ-Resources-Utilization - And a balanced Fusion thruster. But as the game goes toward being "completed", I wouldn't mind even an anti-gravity engine, FTL drive, reactionless-drive as a END GAME last to be ever done achievement if it's what it take to make KSP fun for a little longer. This shouldn't be a question of realism but of game design, although pride probably take a part some people take pride in doing things the hard way. But then, the solution is to make FTL just as hard.

I don't think it's a good idea to make "good observation" a question of luck. If the goal is to encourage/require multiple measure around a biome. Require the player to do observations at different locations in the same biome. Small problem is that it may require an User-Interface to help the player plan where to go next. The advantage is that it would make Rover incredibly useful. One of my preferred idea is for experiment to take time. It would give a huge boost to specialized probes and singlehandedly justify satellites. But until know I didn't knew how to make the mobility of rover useful inside biome. You know what would be an even better countermeasure to timewarp abuse ? Kerbonaut Payroll. It would make a 10 month manned missions way more costly than a 2 years robotic probes.

Well that's also going to be my last reply because you don't seem to get my/our concern about your proposal. KSP is not a "simple game" that can work with a conventional mission system, I though you knew considering how afraid you were afraid of a linear progression. But you now deny the huge complications inherent to your proposal. Again : "You are making a problem out of perfectly normal way of playing" ...and now hide being the fact that SQUAD may work on a "mechanic" of the same name (which may have nothing to do as all with how you see it). Plus your answers are contradictory and incoherent, ONE example amongst others : You suggested keeping the player from using a ship other the one contracted to accomplish an objective, then you say there's no need for that sort of restriction. Then you went further talking of refused-feature like Life-Support, Deadly-reenty...etc as balances mechanisms. What is that supposed to mean ? That if the player's budget skyrocket too high for its reputation Life-Support will spontaneously activate ? FPS can generate "Easy mode" and "Hard mode" easily because they are intrinsically simple at their bases (damage vs hit-point vs time), KSP have too many variable for that This is not a question of "balancing against the most skilled player", it's a question of keeping the progression system coherent regardless of the skills of the players. Plus, from what I could judge you are balancing against unskilled player under the reasoning that they would be I quote "refusing to advance". In the same vein and even if you'll deny wanting that, you advocated that there's a "right way" to play the game that should be encouraged : Linearly, Mission after Mission, Keeping infrastructure as a minimal because "You don't need one anyway" or "Not that important". Don't tell me your system "let player play how they want" since the beginning I (we) kept telling you how it don't. In any case, I like the idea of player interacting with the mission-generator to create/influence game-generated missions. But I disagree with most of what you suggest as a "Contract Proposal".

To complement the Analogy with Race-Game you might want to learn about "Rubber band AI" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RubberBandAI And a game using an AI to "create a story" is Rimworld, I don't know what it's worth though. But "story telling AI" are NOT an easy task. http://rimworldgame.com/

This post took way longer than I though. For starter we have to define what you meant by "do mission". /!\ For clarity what I meant by Fixed-Budget, it should answer most of your question : - Every month (example) you are given a fixed amount of money to spend for ANYTHING. Mission or not. I interpreted "Do missions" as : mission-based progression. But alone it's not enough to make sense of it. As the current BETA-Career demonstrated you can have a technological progression without any mission, but right now it's not interesting enough. The big question have always been "how to keep the player's progression interesting". Science-point are in finite amount, progressively harder to reach and can't be lost. A dream-like parameter for progression. The problem is budget and what to make its driving parameter(s) based on players' actions. (Mission, Reputation, Prestige, Time...) * User-Generated-mission is not very different from Game-generated-mission in term of balance. But whether or not it's the only way to get budget is important. * Money-per-flight or Fixed-budget or both, change everything. I consider money-per-flight doomed, but Fixed-budget isn't perfect either as docking theoretically allow you to transform money into useful-asset as time goes on. At least the size/cost of rocket launched per month stay stable. * Reputation-based progression is an interesting mechanism depending on how it's done. I don't have an proposal myself, but I think linking it to budget would work better than to what mission we trust you with. As you might be able to explore Duna regardless of your reputation. /!\ Now to be clear : As of now you described a system where the only way to get money is "Do mission" (more precisely make up) with flawed parameters/restrictions, one had no negative-feedback, others are impossible to work with. Put aside that it mean you could pretend to fail mission repeatedly to grind money, I assumed that you necessarily got 100% of the Money required to accomplish the task and kept the change in you general fund. It doesn't change my criticism. The problem is that you get a recursive loop where a 100% success rate get you exponential amount of money, and suggested restriction leading to absurd situation like : "You can't refuel/save the Kerbun from the earlier attempt or you don't get as much money. (Ps: let those looser die !)" As for realism... NASA is government funded, SpaceX have investor +subventions, both can "get paid" based on "offer & demand" or at least get things done. Both can fail/bankrupt but very differently. Two difficult things to simulate. You know that it is because right "now" budget is infinite, number of part infinite, science easily accessible and the tech-tree is I hope a place-holder. To get sample from several part biome/planet of the Joolian system (and further Gaz Giant) efficiently you better need an infrastructure, especially if we get some day that stock-ISRU we dream of. Plus Nuclear Thrusters won't be free forever. "Failing to progress is better than regressing" (I felt like quoting Antichamber here) I don't mind making it possible to go "bankrupt" in career mode, but since it will be hard enough to do a lot of science on distant planet in a game that never end, it may be a bad move to "punish". The Negative Feedback I talked about is more to keep budget from escalating out of control.

Okay, first, let's bring everything back together. Answering point by point have the nasty habit of making us forget the global view. You can sum up my message by "You are turning perfectly normal way of playing into gamebreaking problem" I do understand that you want player to have personal funds to use as they damn please, the points I made in my earlier post is that your suggested way of doing so would skyrocket "general fund" up to ridiculous height where it make fun out of the system. A system that is only meaningful until docking-ring is unlocked (or require crazy constrain) isn't what I would call a good gameplay, but you did get my point about player lying to get funds. You are "restricting the number of launch". Or more correctly, you are (trying) to restrict the number of spacecraft authorized to do / help achieve an objective to avoid budget abuse, which end up doing the very same things even if the "general fund" is fixed and always available. I don't remember you telling what would happen for a player who fail to reach his objectives and waste the budget. Does he need to reset from an earlier save ? Does he "abandon mission" and lose reputation point (or my variant the problematic negative-feedback) ? Does he just propose a new budget and get penalty if he just refuel the earlier spaceship ? I can see a Lose-Lose situation if you NEED a space infrastructure but never had the budget to built it. I can see a Lose-Lose situation if you do build a space infrastructure but cannot use it because, either it's made with fund from ongoing objective or you lack the budget to finish the job. And I still see a crazy situation where you just make-up mission objective to get budget. Ironically this is mostly how work the real world, if we want to be really true to reality we would need to use the entire budget to get the same one next year and get budget cut before going to Duna. By the way, you remembered me a critique about continuity : "We must stay able to retry/save a mission and continue playing without being forced to reset to when you got the budget, and live with any Kessler syndrome collection you started." Lastly, about the basic idea of "User-generated Mission" through "Contract proposal". It sound to me we agreed that it will do fundamentally the very same thing than ""a derpy, cookie-cutter, "ferry the random Kerbal around" sort of mission generator"" except that it require even more code to keep the player from scamming the contractor. (Basically you play against an ECONOMIST AI and the goal is to fraud). I don't think there any way to balance this, since it's based on unbalancing the outcome. In you place I would consider either : - Restricting the reward to a fixed amount of money regardless of what was spent (there's a upper limit of course). (you would however unlock "reputation" for being cost-efficient) - or not offering budget by flight, but offering a huuuge "private fund" if you succeed using your fixed-budget*. Money that can be used to go over-budget. - or making the choice of the player inconsequential, ex : you are still asked to do something, you still get the same progression, you just get to chose what sound more fun right know. *fixed-budget : by the way, are we clear bout what I mean by that ? I have a doubt. Your suggestion make it an issue, we both agree it shouldn't. Oh boy ! You have nooo idea how complex my space infrastructure could be. Between the Kerbin and Munar refueling-station, the mobile base traveling through biome waiting for a lander-module to transfer sample/fuel... from a thruster-less science-updated module brought to the surface after being brought in orbit by an 10 years old orbital-tug... not counting eventual satellite refueling service. I tell you GOOD LUCK trying to make a Fair, Consistent and Easy-to-Use contract proposal system that reward/acknowledge my work in a satisfying way. I don't want to be dramatic (I do) but that's a wonderfully horrible way to make a game. We know modern game are way easier than "3 Lives Left" games of the past but making progress slowly harder and harder... because you didn't do thing "right" is just being cruel. Worst than simply loosing in a strategy game (because it's days of effort undone rather than hours). Of course, drama aside, I'm pretty sure you have a LOT of alternate solution to that, I'm just putting thing into perspective.

I'm not saying this is a bad things of course. I'm all up for reusing a good old tug for years or assembling mothership (two things we know epic stories are made of). I just noted that balancing a money-per-launch system become a problem as soon as docking ring are unlocked, and myself I would like docking ring to be unlockable very early without it unbalancing the entire budget/economy system, something which doesn't look possible in the mentioned case of money-per-launch. You are indeed surprising me, you are now suggesting more railroading than I've ever suggested. I raise you a few things to take into consideration : - Orbital refueling or orbital-tug aren't lander but may be reused many time. Even if they may end-up inefficient at some point in the future. - There should never be a reason to discourage "help" from already launched spacecraft. - Restricting the number of launch should be based on budget-reason rather than arbitrary restriction. Plus managing flagged ship for unique-mission doesn't sound very fun, extremely linear even. Are you really DEATH-TO-RAILROADING Regex ? Ah... so if I understand right, you wouldn't get objective concerning Duna unless you gained reputation through say... an historical reenactment of Mercury then Apollo ? (don't mind the personal joke) Still, I don't see it solve being able to land/return from Duna using a modular/overmade rocket regardless of your objectives (and de facto unlocking the reputation). I know our world encourage overachieving but I think it will get very confusing if the objective don't actually matter. It get us back to my point about players lying (as do politician) to fund their space program. Still not as confusing as managing flagged ship in a complex infrastructure though. I don't think it's a wise move to try to make player the source of theirs owns achievements. For starter, what's the point of succeeding at something if you knew right from the start that you could make it ? (bringing us to my point about determining how much budget you needed) Then, as far I know most players actually look up to Career-mode giving them a structured progression, so there's no reasons to think those mission will necessarily be "dumb". Which bring me to my last point : I don't imagine your proposal letting us generate "smarter" missions out of fail-safe balance-restricted choice. You may have forgot that Game-designer work hard to make better mission / game mechanic that most of us would come up with. /!\ btw : "Scott Manley" is merely a metaphor for "extremely-experienced-player" who WILL push the balance-mechanism to their limits or rather outside just by playing normally. (Speedrun should remain something requiring hard effort) Indeed, but now that I read your precision about objective-unlocking reputation. I think the reputation-part of you idea may work with Fixed-Budget(time) + Prestige money based on whether or not you recovered parts and those not-so-expendable-Kerbonaut. Although I still disagree about the feasibility and interest of making-up missions yourself.

It's surprising to hear that from you, as I though you didn't want to be "obligated" to justify yourself with past performance/reputation to get the funding you want. Anyway, to give you a constructive analysis : I liked the idea at first. It had a nice ring of making the players parts of the decision, while being actually guided in his progression. The player would be encouraged to build complex rocket and reuse design, yet forced to actually accomplish something. But as you said : "Not an easy task to balance" is quite an understatement, fact, I doubt it is even feasible : - How to determine how much budget is to be given in the first place. (and shouldn't we give less money to good-player ?) - How do you determine what objective was reached with which budget (as docking will allow modular ship) - How does reputation influence the progression (I would recommend it as a negative-feedback balance mechanism rather than a positive one) - How much left-over money the player can be allowed to "save" (as it can ease everything recursively) Lastly : - How to keep player from abusing the system ? (even accidentally) My worry is that without a negative-feedback* somewhere (in contrast to a deny-of-further-budget), players would (fair to reality) systematically overstate their objectives to get bigger budget and as soon as they can assemble anything in orbit : reach them easily, maxing-out reputation/budget in a recursive positive-feedback. On the opposite side : a bad player would be forced to "grind" his reputation back, something we agree to be bad gameplay. I noted that this problem is recurrent when giving money-per-launch (as opposed to budget-per-time) as soon as docking-ring are added. example of how it can go wrong : - One overbuilt a Mun-Lander so that it can wait in orbit and another ship can refuel it (and transfer Mun sample). - Using far less-budget than needed, the player use this ship to do contract on Minmus. - The player fund a Duna-lander with the BIG left-over, then, even working on a lesser Duna-orbit contract, land on Duna and get back to home : huge reward. - Finally, using the now HUUUUGE LEFT-OVER : fly through any difficulty later. At least the science-part of a reused-vessel wouldn't be up to date, but the problem stay : The progression is exponential rather than linear. *the problem of negative feedback : As we all now God Manley...I mean Scott Manley, will inevitably do everything better than us with less money. If we use a negative-feedback to make the game more challenging for him (a lost battle) there's the risk of making the left-over so insignificant that a good-player would have to GRIND for private funds. I think a solution would be : - Good reputation : whoever fund you get cheapskate and consider you don't need that much budget. - Bad reputation : whoever fund you still want things done and give you bigger budget.

I don't think there's a need to bump up that topic. Career mode is definitively in its infancy and the devs probably only unlocked it to show what they are working on. We don't know 1/10th of how it's going to be when "budget/economy" is introduced, And we know the transmission logic is being entirely redone. So at that point this topic won't bring up anything new.

Some new point of view : It might be unnecessary to impose a construction-time because ... of how we (might) finance the rockets. We've talked before of whether or not our Space Program should "Grind mindlessly for money", unsurprisingly the answer was a big HELL NO !!, letting two solutions : - Fixed amount of Money being available for each launch. - Fixed Budget being available daily, monthly or else. Anybody can guess that as soon as docking-ring are unlocked, the first idea would allow to assemble an infinite amount of modular spaceship in orbit and ruin most challenges. The "Fixed Budget" idea on the other hand would naturally keep you from launching absurd numbers of satellites, or more than one gigantic rocket per month. The problem : A construction-time could keep you (frustratingly) from using efficiently a fixed-budget (case of warp), without solving the problem generated by launch-money. The solution : Let instantaneous construction as an "acceptable break from reality", as the player can retro-actively explain it by "it was planned all along", "We just happened to launch them at the same time" and "What ?! We stayed withing budget no ?". Plus I'm worried about construction-time requiring further complicated balancing mechanism, like a way to upgrade construction time. We've had our disagreement before and swore to not talk about it again, but I have to say that you are overreacting and underestimate the amount Balancing Mechanic needed to make a game truly interesting.

Take it as the following : A longer burn with a lighter LiquidFuel+Engine is better than a short burn with the heavier solidfuel-booster. ...as long as the added TWR is higher than the body you are ascending from of course. But concerning Duna it mean roughly everything even if it add only 0.1m/s² more, as long as you don't loose more than what you lost moving around the mass of the solid booster.

Don't do that ! Solid Booster have an HORRIBLE weight-efficiency, whatever you gain carrying solid-booster around will be less than if you used drop tank for longer burn or even drop tank with actual LV-T30 engines.