Balancing Resource Mining

[Fel]

Basically, I am disappointed with how the general topic is more focused on being a war than a discussion; I'm opening this with the hopes of sparking DISCUSSION on balancing, not just fighting.

Let's start off with a few rules (I know...)

1) No use of the word cheating.

2) No use of the phrase "if you don't like it don't use it"

3) Reference to reality should be done in discussion, such as "NASA has come up with X to help with Y problem" not "NASA is doing it, thus be quiet about it"

4) Reality isn't the final say. This is a game, if complicating things too much would ruin it then we should talk about what is "most fun" than what is "most real"

5) No Call for the removal of the feature

My "personal view and not limited to the discussion" on the matter is that resource mining should end up being a significant long term investment and various mining tools / refinement facilities should be unique to what is being mined. I like the idea, I like thinking that a long term space program would have various bases setup, transfer points plotted out; a kind of universe... but roleplaying only goes so far.

There are halfway points that we could meet at, adding in an "ultimate drill" while still designing the system to use separate drills; etc... there are negociations, making it less enticing to work in ways that THE COMMUNITY feels it should not.

I say again, I only wish to keep this purely discussion, my rules are designed only for "purely discussion", so while an ultimate drill would require a violation of rule #2, I feel that since the OPTION to have more complexity is there, that if people complain about removing a stock part because it isn't "cannon" to the rest of the suggested parts, it would be okay to mention that. Use common sense, the only thing you should never mention is the removal of the feature; I want to balance it, not remove it.

[Torquemadus]

My view is that it's actually unrealistic not to depict ISRU for crewed missions. ISRU is used in planning of IRL crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, because it offers the only way to these missions affordably.

There have been proposals to do interplanetary missions the way we see them in KSP. These haul all of the supplies and consumables required for the entire mission from Earth. This requires the construction of a massive interplanetary spaceship that has to be assembled on orbit in the same manner as the ISS. The projected cost of doing such a mission IRL is so huge as to make it a complete budgetary non-starter!

However, it gets worse. Doing a mission without ISRU means that the crew will have limited consumables and mobility. They won't have much time to explore and they won't be able to explore very far from the landing site. If the crew discover that they have a problem with the lander and can't ride it back to orbit, they have no option to await rescue on the surface. The landing allows for a basic "flags and footprints" exercise, but doesn't get much real exploration done and doesn't offer any prospect of a permanent human presence. This leads many to question whether sending automated probes and rovers would be better.

The aim of sending humans to other worlds is to allow them to do useful work when they get there. Experiments conducted at Moon and Mars analogues on Earth have shown that human explorers have a huge advantage over robots. IRSU provides life support consumables as well as fuels to run surface vehicles. Once a mature base is established, more and more of the explorers' needs can be met locally without resupply from Earth. ISRU also lowers the total launch mass of the mission to the point that it can be done on existing space agency budgets with existing technology, meaning that these missions are something that could actually be done in the near term.

As far as KSP is concerned, the difficulty aspect of ISRU should be about getting interplanetary missions done within the budgetary limits set by the contracts system. If ISRU makes it easier to do interplanetary missions, then part costs and contract rewards should be balanced accordingly.

In the longer term, KSP will need features that more accurately depict crewed missions. We don't currently have to worry about providing proper living accommodations for our crew on long duration missions. We also don't have to provide life support consumables and food.

When our kerbals arrive at their destination, they need to be given more to do that simply plant a flag, collect a sample, and go home! Ideally, they would need vehicles to get around, and a base to operate from and resupply them with snacks! Hopefully, we will see such features in future updates.

[waterlubber]

Personally, the heat generation for drills is too high---may I suggest a "durability" that requires an engineer to repair it occasionally? This would prevent time warp at 100k and having a full tank in seconds. If we added Life Support, this wouldn't be as much as an issue-but drills are complicated and an engineer could repair it with differencing levels of strength-5 star would last for years, 1 star maybe for a day or two. Heat would shorten the lifetime.

Secondly, if the drills are stuck in a large, freezing hunk of mass, I really don't think they'll ever get that hot. We'll need heat radiators, and stuff like that.

Hopefully the heat system will become simpler---I really don't think it's fun, more realistic, but not fun.

[Hcube]

Fel : very interesting post, thanks !

I myself think that we should try out the resource system ourselves before talking about balancing it. i'll tell you guys my opinion as soon as i get my hands on those drills

[rabidninjawombat]

I'm withholding my opinion till i actually get my hands on the system

But in general i think having an IRSU system stock is an awesome idea (seeing as how real space agencies are planning the same thing)

Squad has stated that the system will be extensively moddable, So im sure we'll have plenty of chances to adjust the system to our hearts content.

[tater]

From a balance standpoint, I think something akin to the station/base requirements in contracts makes sense. A way to assign a specific ISRU unit to a specific target, in other worlds. Do science/scanning. Take a mission (ideally create one, but that's not a thing right now, so assume when some level of scanning is completed, specific missions pop up involving that area) where the ISRU only works in that biome/geome/whatever (might vary by world). However it would be done, you'd not pack a "universal fuel maker," you'd build one for a specific world. A munar regolith ISRU won't work on Duna (but certainly might work on Dres, etc).

[Eric S]

I'm withholding my opinion till i actually get my hands on the system

I'm of the same opinion. It's possible for this to be too good or too bad, or even for it to be balanced.

Take a mission (ideally create one, but that's not a thing right now, so assume when some level of scanning is completed, specific missions pop up involving that area) where the ISRU only works in that biome/geome/whatever (might vary by world). However it would be done, you'd not pack a "universal fuel maker," you'd build one for a specific world. A munar regolith ISRU won't work on Duna (but certainly might work on Dres, etc).

I'd be up for this, but I don't think it needs to be in stock.

[tater]

That's the point of balance, though. Extant KSP is hardest in the early game, ISRU that is universal makes the later game even easier, from a gameplay balance POV, that seems like a mistake. Being able to send a ship, knowing ahead of time you need not bother with propellant for the return is not ideal, IMO.

I'd like to see a mod such that you'd not only pick the world/type of ISRU (say gas vs solid vs liquid), but also the PRODUCT of said devices.

[rabidninjawombat]

I'd like to see a mod such that you'd not only pick the world/type of ISRU (say gas vs solid vs liquid), but also the PRODUCT of said devices.

I can almost guarantee you will see such a mod, ive seen someone say they are planning a RealISRU (assuming its a counterpart to RSS )

Remember Harvesters stated goal isnt to make a super realistic space simulator. Its supposed to be game first, simulation second. But the community will gladly pick things up to make the game harder or easier i guarantee it.

[Crusher48]

What if there was several tiers of refinery, and the difference between them would be the efficiency of the resulting fuel? For example, a micro-refinery would still make fuel, but the fuel might only be 50% as efficient, and if you want fully efficient fuel you use the bigger refinery meant for more permanent mining bases.

[khadgarion]

What if there was several tiers of refinery, and the difference between them would be the efficiency of the resulting fuel? For example, a micro-refinery would still make fuel, but the fuel might only be 50% as efficient, and if you want fully efficient fuel you use the bigger refinery meant for more permanent mining bases.

Not a bad idea, but I would say adjusting the effeciency of the refining process rather than the efficiency of the fuel would be easier to implement (don't have to mess with engines at all).

I've got about half of tier 5 filled out right now, and I am guessing the resource stuff is all late tier. I'd be nice to have earlier resource gathering capabilities.. I'd set it up on kerbin to try and save a few bucks on fuel costs on all the rockets I am launching

[MacroNova]

In a game where you can basically launch or orbitally construct whatever kind of delta-V monster you want, the balancing of ISRU is pretty straightforward. It has to offer a meaningful advantage, but obtaining that advantage needs to come at some cost of managing additional complexity. I'd say both conditions are currently being met.

[tater]

I can almost guarantee you will see such a mod, ive seen someone say they are planning a RealISRU (assuming its a counterpart to RSS )

Remember Harvesters stated goal isnt to make a super realistic space simulator. Its supposed to be game first, simulation second. But the community will gladly pick things up to make the game harder or easier i guarantee it.

I tend to prefer erring on the side of realism because realism is "balanced" due to physics (and chemistry, in this case). I think that it results in better gameplay.

Current ISRU means that in the later game, when the player has everything, he also need not worry about propellant, because magic.

If the ISRU was tuned, at least to a few different types, with different efficiencies, then the player would at least have to design a craft to only use ISRU at a particular kind of target.

Atmospheric might be one type. Can make a few different fuels, so have this make LF-O.

Water (usually frozen) another (comets (add those ), and perhaps particular "biomes" (none have biology, so none deserve that name), like polar regions could use this. You get H2 and O2, very useful. Locations could be rare/inefficient, except on bodies with loads of ice/water.

Regolith, this melts regolith to extract O2, and perhaps Al as propellant (would require a novel engine).

Why would this be good gameplay? Airless moons would require polar ice, likely. You could get loads of O2 from regolith, but not much else of use (unless you bring a specific engine to burn Al). Duna, Laythe, have more options, but landing area is constrained for some of them. Comets (add a few) are very eccentric, but provide a huge payoff.

I dunno, I think it adds to gameplay compared to, "stick drill anyplace, profit."