Ore drilling/fuel refining in 1.0 : a built-in cheat, or not a cheat?

[hcalves]

This feature adds a lot to the gameplay, but it has to be balanced such that not all planets/moons have resources, or at least not all resources. Otherwise it'll be too easy and feel like cheating.

E.g., it would make sense to be able to make fuel on Eve, but not on the Mun.

[Xavven]

I'm playing the game, so of course I make my own rules up, play after my own ideas, and want to have fun however it goes. That's pretty much following the core definition of most interactive media, and even more so for a open-ended game like KSP. That seperation is personal, so you can't really ask if something is cheating 'by general definition', but only if it is cheating to a person and the way he or she enjoys the game. I'm e.g. played around with infiniglides in my sandbox mode, while I kept that exploit out of my career mode.

If you want to go for a very strict rule interpretation that doesn't include the human element, then no, it's not cheating, because squad implemented it as a part of their rule system. Your question is a catch 22: Either you go for rule interpretition to get a general 'sterile' idea and no personal interpretation (which doesnt really affect how people play), or you go for personal interpretation and don't get a general idea (which varies from person to person).

Btw: I think the system is kinda flawed in how you can mine everywhere independent of ressource density, so I probably will still limited my mining to ressource rich areas (instead of mining in poor areas and time-accelerate for a few days). It is a bit tricky: Ways to limit this, like life support, or some kind of mod to limit the lifetime of a drill, would just add another ressource system atop of our ressource system for the sake of it. Kethane limited deposits were also kinda boring and one dimensional.

If one were to accept that cheating is only defined by each player by his or her self, then the question, "is this cheating?" is indeed not a valid one to begin with.

The fact that someone has asked "is this cheating?" implies that there is an objective way to measure it, that there is a standard against which to measure it, and I argue that the standard is the official ruleset, which is defined by the game developer.

IMO, that pretty much sums up every "cheating?" thread I've ever seen on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

How does that have anything to do with KSP? Am I hacking? No. I'd be using something in the game. Argument is invalid.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone has access to the resource harvesting thing so I don't see how it's not fair. I don't know why you guys are comparing hacks with an IN-GAME mechanic to make your arguments. Probably because you have no point to make.

First off, the Dark Souls analogy was an analogy. Of course they're not the same game! What it has to do with KSP is the content of the analogy.

Secondly, I don't think you understand that neither r4pt0r nor I asserted that ISRU is cheating. We're on the same side on that point.

[The Yellow Dart]

I Agree that it looks too easy. The Mun at least is mostly covered by ore. I would prefer the surface be mostly barren, with small islands of ore (learn precise landing technique). I would also like it to be kind of odds based, like you see a spot of high concentration from above and it means that there is 75% chance there will be ore under you when you land. i.e. a square kilometer of high concentration will be divided into 100 blocks 75 of which have ore, the rest don't. There is only so much you can tell from orbit, without landing and actually seeing if it's there. This would also encourage adding wheels to your rig. (This just a tangent, not important to the cheating question).

[SkyRender]

Would it be considered "cheating" if NASA were to use the Mun to mine helium-3 and aluminium? Or perhaps the plan to mine a captured asteroid once we get one around the Earth is also cheating? Is the proposed Mars Direct mission cheating as well for using the atmosphere of Mars to produce methane-based fuel? Just because no space program has yet done something does not mean it's cheating. If that were the case, you'd have to toss the RAPIER engine in the pile too.

[Wjolcz]

Would it be considered "cheating" if NASA were to use the Mun to mine helium-3 and aluminium? Or perhaps the plan to mine a captured asteroid once we get one around the Earth is also cheating? Is the proposed Mars Direct mission cheating as well for using the atmosphere of Mars to produce methane-based fuel? Just because no space program has yet done something does not mean it's cheating. If that were the case, you'd have to toss the RAPIER engine in the pile too.

YES!

*sike!*

I actually agree with you. And I don't understand why so many people consider it cheating. They can just not use it. I'm gonna.

E: also it would be noice if we could sell raw ore.

E2: Isn't it already in plans to produce fuel out of martian air? There are even some prototypes by space agencies, if I'm not mistaken?

Edited April 26, 2015 by Veeltch

[ImperialistPigDog]

I can't see how this is any way cheating. Resources adds so much more to the game: it gives purpose to bases, makes self sufficient colonies a reality, and ships can refuel on there missions! I mean imagine it, you could set up a colony on Duna with all the ships you need to mine, refuel, and launch. So instead of Kerbin being your main base of operations it could be Duna. The mining parts will probably be a high tech level, so you'll have plenty of regular missions to do before you get them.

[LadyAthena]

Calling this "cheating" is similar to calling the old aerodynamics "cheating" Sure it's 1.0 but they said they'd be doing many many many more updates, additions, tweaks, etc. I don't even see 1.0 as being the "release" honestly.

That being said mods will be able to more easily tweak the resources even more for the ones that already exist and will allow you to have that more realistic refueling of having to break the ore down etc.

[tjsnh]

Interesting discussion so far, thank you folks.

[Stealth2668]

First off, the Dark Souls analogy was an analogy. Of course they're not the same game! What it has to do with KSP is the content of the analogy.

Secondly, I don't think you understand that neither r4pt0r nor I asserted that ISRU is cheating. We're on the same side on that point.

My point is your anology doesn't make sense because hacking =/= using in game mechanics. Read post #2

[ImperialistPigDog]

I think its pretty balanced, it takes for ever to actually convert the stuff.

[regex]

Basically Challenges forum posts are going to have all sort of different stipulations now. I mean, you really can't say that an entry that used ISRU for a crewed EVE landing and return mission is better than an entry that didn't, or that an entry that was done with easy-mode re-entry heat is somehow equal or better than one that did it with hard-mode re-entry. Other than that, no one really cares.

Kind of reminds me of the epic MechJeb trolling back in the day. Of course, if you did your first Mun landing with MechJeb you really missed out and, no one really cared about you doing it (rightly, IMO). But, at the end of the day, the only person you were potentially cheating was yourself.

[Melcom]

have you seen how much energy you need to upkeep mining or refining? If there is no new big RTG you will need a lot of effort to run the operation.

[Xavven]

My point is your anology doesn't make sense because hacking =/= using in game mechanics. Read post #2

I re-read post #2 and indeed r4pt0r is against ISRU as a gameplay mechanic. I conceed that.

However, you will have to read post #5 and concede as well. We are in agreement, dude.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Greetings,

I am not surprised...I did not nor would I get spoilt to see any previews...the Gal trailer was enough for me and it was good !

So, when I get KSP 1.0 started, it will take me upwards of about 200 Contract Missions just to get started with 'MY' resource game; I say 'MY' because I did a complete rewrite of resource detection, mining, and refining in the game.

It will generally take a 'long' time to get to my endgame, where I will be drilling about 40,000 units of ORE per day; it should take 3 months of gametime to have rockets built to go to Jool; in space mind you; it may actually take 6 months; but my plan is to go to...wait...no spoilers...harr!

It almost seems like the current game .90 I was getting about twice the funds and if I halved everything it would simply take me twice as long to win the game; yes you can win KSP...in this case it's probly called just getting to endgame.

I will be working on my website and have the resource game mapped out comparing stock and personal Tech Trees and you will see how I made the game more of a challenge...Science Requirements wise.

I also have to move several parts in the Science tree; it is ALOT of work but well worth it to make a kool challenge of a SIM; it is then that I call KSP a SIM; why; because in the long run the Kerbalnauts in my SIM must find resources on their own to survive during their 100day mission; IE their Greenhouse only provides for 100 days of food, water, and oxygen; other filtration systems make up the differences (using modified TACLIFE).

I have access to atmospheric, surface, and water resources and can add any resource I want; and they are all limited and based on real world density values. Refinement process are also based on real world...IE to make Aluminum you mine Bauxite to get Alumina then refine Alumina with Lime and NaOH (I also have to get Lime from mined Limestone and I actually forgot how I make NaOH - check out my website).

So if you want to see a great resource game, watch my stream. I dont process 1 resource to make another one; there always has to be loss and refinement; in fact I still have yet to tweak fuel systems resource production; I have Aluminum all done and I could even add more resources to it but I dont want to go overboard; I further refine Aluminum to make Sapphire to which resource contracts will be added so I can sell refined resources for funds...ya.

I say all this because honestly I been working on this for the last 6 months; it is a simple matter of rewriting cfg codes to get what you want in a resource game; for me 6 months worth; I could use some support I think it would be nice...I know my streams arnt so great but hey, I think I can put myself up on a pedestal here; I feel great about what I have done and am trying to showcase MODS as best I can; mostly the artwork of the parts I use; about half or more is the resource coding from me; it was alot of work; but now I have an AWESOME KSP game.

Cmdr Zeta

Edited April 26, 2015 by Cdr_Zeta

[Xyrus]

I fail to see the merit of the argument that ISRU is "cheaty". Just about every aspect of the game is "cheaty" using that measure. The OP is just latching on to the one aspect out of many that he/she happen to disagree with.

For those who thought certain aspects weren't real enough or hard enough (e.g. "cheaty"), they either created or used mods to modify the game to taste (FAR, DRE, TAC, etc.). And it is quite likely that difficulty mods like those will also appear for 1.0. You don't even need a mod really. If you want to make ISRU harder just crack open the parts files and tweak them.

Don't use it, tweak it, or wait for a mod. But really it isn't any more or less "cheaty" than a Kerbal surviving interplanetary space for ten years in an unshielded, thin walled, metal box with just a cubby full of Kerbal Snax.

[Bandock]

Judging by the previews, you can reduce the abundance of resources to make them ultra rare.

[juanml82]

Judging by the previews, you can reduce the abundance of resources to make them ultra rare.

I think that's just the concentration the overlay will show. If it's based on karbonite, it's everywhere - the only difference is how much is there.

[RoverDude]

Actually...

You can adjust abundance globally with a difficulty slider (which will, if cranked down, result in some barren areas and potentially barren planets). Also, the gear is not light, nor is it exactly efficient (in some ways it's more mass and energy intensive than Karbointe, in other ways it's easier - i.e. orbital or surface are both viable options for refineries).

And no, I'd say that using a stock mechanic is not, globally, 'cheating', but it could certainly be a restriction placed on challenges and such.

Oh... and it's incredibly extensible, so if it's not your cup of tea ISRU wise, go nuts and make something else - all of the lego bits are there for you, and you can do your own ISRU mod using nothing but configs if you're so inclined.

[magnemoe]

Even if you use hacks your aren't effecting anyone else so it's irrelevant :/

True, however coming here and brag about getting off Eve using unlimited fuel will not get you much credit.

In 0.9 I used the extraplanetary launchpad mod, it lets you extract ore, turn into metal and then to rocketparts you can use to build ships everywhere, ab effective setup weight perhaps 20-30 ton.

Yes its pretty cheaty as its unrealistic even with an large base you could hardly build everything, benefit is that if you put it on Pol you don't have to launch everything from Kerbin speeding up gameplay a lot and making it fast to test stuff, still its not a very realistic thing

[Norcalplanner]

Roverdude,

Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions.

As for myself, it is axiomatic that using something made by the developers as part of the game in the way it was intended to be used in the game is not cheating. If you use a different definition (it's overpowered - it takes some of the fun away - there's no way you could do that in real life with current technology) then all sorts of 0.90 also need to be considered "cheaty" - including thrust not scaling with atmospheric pressure, turbojets that take a plane into space, no reentry heating or mach effects, no life support requirements, no maximum G for survival, etc. In real life, ISRU is a thing. Mach effects are a thing. Reentry heating is a thing. Turbojets not working at mach 5 is a thing. With all those in the game, it's hard to call it "cheaty". Different from what you're used to, yes; cheating, no.

[basic.syntax]

Everything RoverDude just wrote: YAY! Just about every possible grumble has been addressed, in one way or another.

I knew it would be possible to change the colors of the scanner overlay, but I may have missed a post about the style of the display - Player's choice if they want to see banded, dots, or smooth shaded.

I just got through watching EnterElysium's vid on YT, and paid attention to the timings: with three drills in one spot on the Mun, it took about 4.5 days (with time acceleration) to extract 1500 units of ore. Then, another 6.5 days through the ISRU convertor, to fill up three x200-32 tanks. 12 days, mission elapsed time.

[The Yellow Dart]

Actually...

You can adjust abundance globally with a difficulty slider (which will, if cranked down, result in some barren areas and potentially barren planets). Also, the gear is not light, nor is it exactly efficient

Awesome! That slider sounds great, just what I was hoping for.

Side question: anyone heard about removing science from contracts in 1.0? I've been using a mod to do it because there is just way too science if you leave it in. I've been hoping it would be added to the difficulty menu.

[Stealth2668]

True, however coming here and brag about getting off Eve using unlimited fuel will not get you much credit.

In 0.9 I used the extraplanetary launchpad mod, it lets you extract ore, turn into metal and then to rocketparts you can use to build ships everywhere, ab effective setup weight perhaps 20-30 ton.

Yes its pretty cheaty as its unrealistic even with an large base you could hardly build everything, benefit is that if you put it on Pol you don't have to launch everything from Kerbin speeding up gameplay a lot and making it fast to test stuff, still its not a very realistic thing

Who says anything about bragging? IDK why everyone takes this concept and relates it to a competition where it would be considered "cheating". We're talking single player...

[RoverDude]

Also it's not exactly unlimited. You still need to haul down ISRU gear (and they are not light), the power generation to support it, and of course your empty fuel tanks. So for a given mission you will still have constraints, but they will be very different than what we had in 1.0.

And although I'm obviously biased, I like that it adds an interesting new mechanic to the game, and opens up options for both stock players and (especially) modders to do some interesting things.

[Fel]

I think this is a really annoying argument; let's change it D:<

Let's now say Harv intends to, in v1.1 update, add in fuel-less engines. "Real space agencies are proposing fuel-less engines as part of future missions," this thus gives us all the reason to go ahead and implement them.

Let's say Harv also intends to, in the v1.1 update, add in Starlite as an optional coating that can be applied to any surface; "Real space agencies" are interested in the material, hence we should implement it.

Arguing if it should be added is boring, it alternates between "it is just a game, it doesn't have to be realistic" to "if you don't like it, don't use it." The more interesting part is to see how far you can push those who support the feature under the pretense that it is "talked about in real life" before we start abandoning the aforementioned arguments. How bad can harv make the v1.1 update, adding in features no one wants, but have some semblance in the world; before people will say "okay, that is enough"

If we're talking about what the spirit of the game is to determine if something is "cheating", we really do need to abandon the whole "it is just a game, it doesn't have to be realistic" to "if you don't like it, don't use it."

Edited April 26, 2015 by Fel