Kerbals Hiring - feature - V1.0

[Mr. Scruffy]

Time could also enable reaslistic loans - get 100k now, pay off 10k every earthly (just an example - the game should use kerbal measures) month for an earthly year. This could elevate the ´timewarp-trap´ to some extent - sort of a lifeline (or 3).

Also: Kebaled space stations - you´d send them up, and keep them there, as your scientists would only do 0.1 SCI per person per day out of a 20-50 total avaiable - for one experiment (+skill modifiers).

---

The way tater puts it, time (as spoken of, here) clearly trumps REP as a potential game component. I am not even sure, if REP shouldnt go out, if time only made it in. As your missions´ payments expire, you are being pushed on - or forced to grind on those contracts (some more - depending on chosen difficulty and overall effeciency).

[Nemrav]

Well, its a simple system, but a 100th astronaut will get more expensive than the 90th in real life due to a rise in demand + less astronauts (just assume Kerbals get for life constant payment rather than varying wages)

But skill is definetly a better way to determine cost, considering all of Kerbin's population works at KSC

[Mr. Scruffy]

XCom is a great example, as is Civilization 5. The "one more turn" addiction of those games is only present because of time-based mechanics.

Ironically, if the topic is interpretated strictly, XCom is a bad example, cause IIRC, your soldiers get hired with a one-down payment (of a whooping 10$ or so). But if the topic is interpretated more openly, then yes, it´s a good one. The main reason i posted that pic, is the ´upcoming events´ list, it displays, which should have its counterpart in KSP - both games are pretty similar in structure, at least concerning the campaign. The pic itself, with that green man standing at the bottom, actually reminds me of the VAB.

[klgraham1013]

Ironically, if the topic is interpretated strictly, XCom is a bad example, cause IIRC, your soldiers get hired with a one-down payment (of a whooping 10$ or so). But if the topic is interpretated more openly, then yes, it´s a good one. The main reason i posted that pic, is the ´upcoming events´ list, it displays, which should have its counterpart in KSP - both games are pretty similar in structure, at least concerning the campaign. The pic itself, with that green man standing at the bottom, actually reminds me of the VAB.

Indeed. So many games have used time (including fast forward) to great benefit. It's just amazing to me that Squad are so intent on avoiding it.

[NWM]

The increasing cost of hiring - dependently from the already hired - is a dumb but popular idea among the game makers, and usually credited as a dumb and annoying cheap .... among the players (rendered many basically good game to useless junk for the "high efficiency" players, as it works for the dummies). Salary system is far better. Salaries can increase by skills, but in balanced way (cost of 1 5 star ~ cost of 2-3 0 star)

Having some training time (along with time with construction, building upgrade time) would make them more precious - as they cannot be replaced immediately by one click.

The level of compensation and reputation loss for KIA should depend on the level, rank and the service time of the kerbonauts. (yep, it increases by the game ahead)

The level of reputation should effect the quality and quantity of the available recruits. There should be a "Recruit campaign" button which can give you more kerbals.

This system could increase the penalty for loosing kerbals as the game goes ahead without any unrealistic element.

And: a kind of life support can kill the "let the kerbounauts behind for indefinite time" tricks.

[KrazyKrl]

I think the discussion on time mechanics is out-of-scope for this thread.

As for the kerbal hiring costs...

The logistics of handling 5 astronauts is much easier than handling hundreds. It's not just the cost, it's the infrastructure that must be increased (and maintained); to support them.

Simply rectified by something very simple: $Y "recruitment/infrastructure upgrades" cost(scaling), $Z investment in standard salary(static). Total hiring cost $Y + $Z.

[klgraham1013]

Infrastructure costs are already in place through building upgrades.

[tater]

I think the discussion on time mechanics is out-of-scope for this thread.

As for the kerbal hiring costs...

The logistics of handling 5 astronauts is much easier than handling hundreds. It's not just the cost, it's the infrastructure that must be increased (and maintained); to support them.

Simply rectified by something very simple: $Y "recruitment/infrastructure upgrades" cost(scaling), $Z investment in standard salary(static). Total hiring cost $Y + $Z.

It's not out of scope at all, because as was correctly observed up thread, the increasing cost is entirely a kludge for the fact that there are no recurring costs/revenues at all in the game because in KSP, time is entirely meaningless. With meaningful time, your astronauts or other staff might be an overhead cost that would require you to take commercial launches, or use your budget effectively (since real time could also have budgeted programs).