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

[Levelord]

The community's increasing obsession with 'cheating' in a sigleplayer game makes me want to smash my head on the table. This isn't some contest or e-peen measuring challenge. Just launch your goddamn rockets.

Besides, this is pointed out before that this was an actual proposal put forward by NASA, so it has actual real world applications.

This has to be the stupidest discussion I have seen on the board. Frankly, I'm starting to regret acknowledging that this thread exists by even posting here. :I

[Windspren]

What do you mean by fuel less engines? Like the quantum vacuum thruster?

[bigyihsuan]

I consider it to be not a cheat because it's a feature in the game that is not accessed by a debug menu or console commands.

[Brotoro]

And, like anything else, you can enforce your own restrictions about how you use parts (just like I have certain restrictions on operating nuclear engines close to unshielded kerbals).

[magnemoe]

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.

Yes, assuming it works like karbonite the speed you gather resourced depend on concentration. More fun and also verified in video it works even if not active craft.

If you active drill and converter it will fill up.

Very nice video, showed plenty if interesting stuff like that we can have interstage fairings.

[Fel]

The community's increasing obsession with 'cheating' in a sigleplayer game makes me want to smash my head on the table. This isn't some contest or e-peen measuring challenge. Just launch your goddamn rockets.

Besides, this is pointed out before that this was an actual proposal put forward by NASA, so it has actual real world applications.

This has to be the stupidest discussion I have seen on the board. Frankly, I'm starting to regret acknowledging that this thread exists by even posting here. :I

This is actually an issue of gameplay and if it is balanced; "cheating" is just a buzzword.

Let me point out that with the unbalanced reaction wheels came numerous bugs with RCS, if RCS was the focus and reaction wheels secondary we would see more attempts at fixing RCS. Similarly, with the ability to mine for resources comes a decreased desire to fix the issues with xenon; as xenon is really for the high dVs, but mining can also increase dVs, xenon may end up being abandoned in favour of supporting and expanding mining. People who don't like mining are pushed aside and left to deal with the atrociously long burns with xenon.

[Xavven]

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."

Yeah, I think the "realism" argument can actually be decoupled from the "is it cheating?" argument altogether if you really want. The OP mentioned he objected to creating fuel "out of nothing" (I'm paraphrasing here) though, which is an appeal to disbelief/unrealism, so I felt obliged to point out that it's not unrealistic.

And personally, I have had the "don't like it? don't use it" argument used against me way back when I objected to some part testing contracts, and I admit it is kind of annoying, but I can understand why people say it and there is some validity to it. Just because you won't use something, doesn't mean it should be removed from the game. OTOH, if the game practically requires you (out of game balance, for example) to use something that you dislike, then it actually can make the whole game go sour for that person. For example, if Squad included a planet with gravity so crushing that I had to use an overpowered part that I disliked for personal reasons, like "oh, this is an ion engine but it's TWR is 4,000,000 and warps spacetime!" then I'd probably actually enjoy KSP less (just personal preference, guys).

- - - Updated - - -

The community's increasing obsession with 'cheating' in a sigleplayer game makes me want to smash my head on the table. This isn't some contest or e-peen measuring challenge. Just launch your goddamn rockets.

Besides, this is pointed out before that this was an actual proposal put forward by NASA, so it has actual real world applications.

This has to be the stupidest discussion I have seen on the board. Frankly, I'm starting to regret acknowledging that this thread exists by even posting here. :I

Eh, not sure what you're adding to the discussion by saying you're disgusted. Um, sorry?

Again, if someone's asking if something is cheating or not, they're looking for a standard by which to measure against. I think it's hyperbole to characterize that as an egotistical e-peen issue. If the OP already held the belief that you can't cheat in a single-player game s/he wouldn't have posted to begin with.

EDIT:

I thought of another analogy. Everyone's played solitaire (Klondike) right? Well suppose I change the rules and decide that any card can be placed under any other card. None of this alternating black/red business, or "has to be in descending order" crap. Well now I win every time. And it's more fun. Single-player game, guys, so it's not cheating. Conclusion: it's not cheating by my rules, but I'm not actually playing solitaire (Klondike) any more. I'm playing some other game.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Xavven

[Sandworm]

Are there places on planets that don't have magic rocks? From looking at the overlays in the demos it seems you can plop down most anywhere and vacuum up endless fuel. One of the demos mentions that resource density only impacts the rate of collection. But with collection during warp, I see no practical difference. Anything that is infinite and can be found everywhere is the definition of op imho.

[Xavven]

Are there places on planets that don't have magic rocks? From looking at the overlays in the demos it seems you can plop down most anywhere and vacuum up endless fuel. One of the demos mentions that resource density only impacts the rate of collection. But with collection during warp, I see no practical difference. Anything that is infinite and can be found everywhere is the definition of op imho.

Yeah, you might want to turn down the ore density slider in the difficulty options. Roverdude just mentioned that it will result in some barren areas. I'm assuming this means 0%

[Sandworm]

Yeah, you might want to turn down the ore density slider in the difficulty options. Roverdude just mentioned that it will result in some barren areas. I'm assuming this means 0%

I'm not happy with that. I think Squad has relied entirely too much on "choice". I know it's counterintuitive, but there is a point at which having tiny sliders for every little detail of the game becomes constraining. I cannot be the only one who has stared at the screen for 15 minutes trying to decide which rewards setting is appropriate, only to give up and go science-only rather then deal with question. Given the time required between starting a new save and starting to mine resources (10+hours?) I would rather Squad offer more ingame tools (ie proper landing instrumentation to facilitate landing on small patches) than saddle users with having to restart over and over until they work out what level of resources matches their play style.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Sandworm

[Volodyuka]

I'm not happy with that. I think Squad has relied entirely too much on "choice". I know it's counterintuitive, but there is a point at which having tiny sliders for every little detail of the game becomes constraining. I cannot be the only one who has stared at the screen for 15 minutes trying to decide which rewards setting is appropriate, only to give up and go science-only rather then deal with question. Given the time required between starting a new save and starting to mine resources (10+hours?) I would rather Squad offer more ingame tools (ie proper landing instrumentation to facilitate landing on small patches) than saddle users with having to restart over and over until they work out what level of resources matches their play style.

You still has sandbox mode, and it had sliders too.

Neither the less this whole discussion is a VERY stupid one, ISRU is a working conception, in fact it is technologically possible today, and have it in game as option (you can not use any of the parts in career/sandbox anyway, as you can previously go pass a lot of parts and never use them). In fact the next step, that are in works today, is 3D printing of equipment in zero-g, and creating new ways to 3D printing, so it be possible one day (decades in the future) to have manufacture in space.

So IMO ISRU is a good addition to game that makes it more interesting in the department of planning long missions and space infrastructure (minmus/mun bases and space stations in orbit, launching missions to produce fuel prior to manned mission and etc.) So stop whining.

[Xavven]

I'm not happy with that. I think Squad has relied entirely too much on "choice". I know it's counterintuitive, but there is a point at which having tiny sliders for every little detail of the game becomes constraining. I cannot be the only one who has stared at the screen for 15 minutes trying to decide which rewards setting is appropriate, only to give up and go science-only rather then deal with question. Given the time required between starting a new save and starting to mine resources (10+hours?) I would rather Squad offer more ingame tools (ie proper landing instrumentation to facilitate landing on small patches) than saddle users with having to restart over and over until they work out what level of resources matches their play style.

I'm with you there. I just picked "Hard" difficulty and left the options at default. Picking the right slider for every aspect feels like you're building your own obstacle course. It doesn't really show you where you need to improve when you can just pick the slider that meets your current ability level.

[Sandworm]

You still has sandbox mode, and it had sliders too.

Neither the less this whole discussion is a VERY stupid one, ISRU is a working conception, in fact it is technologically possible today, and have it in game as option (you can not use any of the parts in career/sandbox anyway, as you can previously go pass a lot of parts and never use them). In fact the next step, that are in works today, is 3D printing of equipment in zero-g, and creating new ways to 3D printing, so it be possible one day (decades in the future) to have manufacture in space.

So IMO ISRU is a good addition to game that makes it more interesting in the department of planning long missions and space infrastructure (minmus/mun bases and space stations in orbit, launching missions to produce fuel prior to manned mission and etc.) So stop whining.

I'm not sure about that. I haven't seen anyone speak of dropping a drill into a planet and pumping out rocket fuel. The moon ain't Texas. The apparatus for collecting enough of whatever raw material would be huge. Think massive diggers and conveyor belts, not tiny drills. There are also fundamental differences between liquid water and H2/O2 rocket fuel. Being made of the same stuff doesn't mean it's easy to make one into the other. Getting from dirty water to pure rocket fuel is like moving from coal to diamond: possible, but by no means easy. And at least the diamond isn't constantly trying to boil off into space.

[Cocox]

I don't think this is cheating. After all, the Kerbals are little green men. Maybe THEY DO HAVE the technology to turn rock into fuel and water into wine..

[Eric S]

I haven't seen anyone speak of dropping a drill into a planet and pumping out rocket fuel. The moon ain't Texas.

We're not talking about drilling for oil and then refining it either. I'm guessing you've never googled for "nasa isru" for that matter, since the NASA website does talk about it. Yes, there's more research to be done, but the basic theory is solid, and doesn't involve anything on the scale you're talking about.

[Vanamonde]

Folks, if you dislike a discussion, just post a counter-argument or skip to the next thread. Calling it "stupid" doesn't do anything but make others angry and less inclined to listen to your ideas.

[rakutenshi]

I think people who play their game a different way from the way I like to play are wrong and the developers should ensure that the sort of gameplay I don't support is removed from the game because only I am right.

Seriously. If you don't like a feature, don't use it.

[Sandworm]

We're not talking about drilling for oil and then refining it either. I'm guessing you've never googled for "nasa isru" for that matter, since the NASA website does talk about it. Yes, there's more research to be done, but the basic theory is solid, and doesn't involve anything on the scale you're talking about.

Drilling for oil is in the game. Dropping a drill into a moon and refining whatever comes up into rocket fuel is exactly what Squad is talking about. Squad should be the one googling around nasa websites. Nowhere is there any mention of tiny drills pulling up the tons of rock necessary to generate the fuel needed to launch a manned craft into orbit from a planet. Perhaps soil for growing food, or building shelters, but bulk propellant isn't on the table. The weight of processing equipment just isn't worth it.

[Ralathon]

All this talk about "realism", "cheating" and "overpowered" are missing the main point.

KSP is a game. The main question here is whether or not ISRU results in more varied and interesting gameplay.

Is the ISRU equipment so light that it becomes mandatory for every mission? As in, do you always end up with increased payload per funds if you include the ISRU? Clearly this is not the case since the ISRU gear is pretty heavy. To justify having it you need a huge lander that has more than 1 destination (No point bringing ISRU gear if you just want a unmanned rover on the mun). So the ISRU will not always be the obvious inclusion.

Will it be so heavy and big as to be useless? No, because it is still very useful for far away targets with multiple destinations. Like messing around in the Joolian system or Duna returns.

So the ISRU will add complexity to your mission planning. It is no longer "Right, I need X dV so lets slap some more boosters on this thing!", instead it becomes a question whether the mass of the ISRU justifies its inclusion. This is a good thing.

[Norcalplanner]

These parts are unlocked very late in the tech tree, so ISRU isn't an option until the end game.

[MKI]

A built in cheat is the cheat menu.

The proposed resource mechanic is part of the game, not a cheat.

In terms of Career mode only balance (Sandbox isn't a good place to consider balance of anything, as you can just spam infinite anything there with no problems.) This system is end-game level, an investment. So no its not a cheat, its part of the game. The same way the SLS parts are very strong, but not a cheat (as some people proposed when it came out) as they are balanced by the fact they are very expensive and you get them later.

Or how the RAPIER engine isn't a cheat (as more people proposed when they came out)

When something new changes the old, people feel threaten as their old ways are no longer the best ways. Well that's called innovation and new features. Its part of the game's update system and the new "normal". Faster you accept it the more fun you will have playing around with these new features.

[Wallygator]

if using any element of the KSP software is cheating, then the entire program should be considered cheating. Which means I need to go outside in my back garden and construct an actual rocket out of scrap - Which might also be cheating if I don't get the correct permits.

IMHO ISRU (even in its simplistic implementation) is a welcomed addition to the game system. I'm looking forward to seeing how our modding community takes it to the next level.

[severedsolo]

I found with Kethane (admittedly this was a long time ago) that any "extra" fuel you gained by drilling, was quickly offset again by the extra fuel needed to haul the stuff back to orbit, so I guess it depends how heavy the ore is.

[magnemoe]

All this talk about "realism", "cheating" and "overpowered" are missing the main point.

KSP is a game. The main question here is whether or not ISRU results in more varied and interesting gameplay.

Is the ISRU equipment so light that it becomes mandatory for every mission? As in, do you always end up with increased payload per funds if you include the ISRU? Clearly this is not the case since the ISRU gear is pretty heavy. To justify having it you need a huge lander that has more than 1 destination (No point bringing ISRU gear if you just want a unmanned rover on the mun). So the ISRU will not always be the obvious inclusion.

Will it be so heavy and big as to be useless? No, because it is still very useful for far away targets with multiple destinations. Like messing around in the Joolian system or Duna returns.

So the ISRU will add complexity to your mission planning. It is no longer "Right, I need X dV so lets slap some more boosters on this thing!", instead it becomes a question whether the mass of the ISRU justifies its inclusion. This is a good thing.

This depend on the scale of the mission, for small probes its always out. If you go to Duna to plant a flag you will be better off with an small lander, if you want to grab all the science at Duna and Ike you want to use ISRU.

For even larger stuff like Jool 5 it will reduce the mission size a lot. Now for larger interplanetary ship including the plant a flag on Duna will always save you money as you can launch empty and fill it up in orbit with fuel from Minmus.

[Columbia]

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).

This.

I really hope that all the planets and moons won't be all covered with Ore when 1.0 comes out. It seems cheaty from my perspective that every planet is basically Ore heaven.

It doesn't cause the whole game to turn to a piece of cake, nor does it become some sort of Space Race. It pretty much balances it for me, and adds a new challenge.

Still, I don't mind people playing the game in a whole other way.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Columbia