Suggestion: Expanded R&D: Time and Setbacks

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

There is a problem in this game.  The rewards for science are far too immediate.   I’ve heard it described that "science is overpowered," or problems with biomes but I think it is far simpler than that.

In an early career game you spend days designing a low tech Mun Lander, you finally get Jeb there, and the moment he does an EVA report, you get a flood of science points and the rocket is obsolete. 

You’re back in the VAB designing a new rocket before Jeb is even home.  And so much for my plans for Mun Lander II  (To put its childishly; I spent all that time designing my new toy and I only get to play with it once. )

The problem is that the R&D Department is that in name only.  There is no research, nor development.  It functions as a tech store, you walk in with science points and buy something.

At first I thought the answer was something complex involving converting science points into “tech points.” And blah blah blah.  But it’s far simpler than that, you should direct Research and Development.  But it should take time. You should direct R&D the way you do now (in the tech tree), but the results should take time.  They will get back to you.  In weeks or months.  This will lead to pleasant, surprising pop ups “Congratulations, we’ve completed research and development in supersonic atmospheric flight.  These parts are now available in the VAB/SPH.”

This means that spacecraft won’t become obsolete quite as quickly.  But you’ll have a reason, and time, to send MunLander 2 and 3 while you wait for the results from the R&D Dept. How many things you can research at once, and how quickly you get results should depend on the Tier of the R&D and strategies regarding how much money you spend on R.&D.

But wait there is more:

Sometimes R&D does not go as planned.  You should have “setbacks”  researching any individual thing should randomly cost more money and take more time.  It would be a lot of fun, hear me out:

After the Sim realizes your R and D has had a setback, it waits until you’re looking at the whole KSC, and then, one small building on the outskirts of the R&D department EXPLODES.  A tiny amount of damage, a little puff of smoke, (not like a rocket crash), and then a popup of a startled Kerbal in a slightly burnt lab coat telling you “We’ve had a bit of a setback.”

Even given an infinite amount of science points, it should take years to clear the Tech Tree. Just in R&D time.

I think it would make the game more realistic AND more fun.

/there I fixed it.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[Wjolcz]

Ermmmm... Yes and no. I'd prefer it this way.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah we've chatted about this before but the problem with time based mechanics (and the reason they don't exist already) remains the ability to time warp. If you can just time warp through something then all it adds is minutia. What players will do is set something to research, go outside, time warp, then go back in. You've added fuss, but not a real mechanic. For time to matter it needs to have a cost, which tends to incur other problems. You can for instance have reputation whittle away over time, but then when players want to time warp their probe to Jool they find that all of their reputation has been erased en-route. I understand the impulse, and Im not saying its impossible, but until we have another time based cost like life support I just don't see how it works.

I do agree with you that science could use some work, and honestly would love for time to become an active consideration in Kerbal, its just tougher to manage than it seems at first.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Wjolcz]

8 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah we've chatted about this before but the problem with time based mechanics (and the reason they don't exist already) remains the ability to time warp. If you can just time warp through something then all it adds is minutia. What players will do is set something to research, go outside, time warp, then go back in. You've added fuss, but not a real mechanic. For time to matter it needs to have a cost, which tends to incur other problems. You can for instance have reputation whittle away over time, but then when players want to time warp their probe to Jool they find that all of their reputation has been erased en-route. I understand the impulse, and Im not saying its impossible, but until we have another time based cost like life support I just don't see how it works.

Well, I always try to do as many missions at once as possible to kill the time when something is on a long trip to the outer Kerbol system anyway. As long as the player is occupied with contracts (or should I call them MISSIONS?) that make sense and are fun to do in the mean time I see no problem with that. I would gladly focus on expanding and maintaining my LKO station or research new ways of SSTO propulsion, or build a permanent Mun base and focus on harvesting the ore and bringing it back to Kerbin (without abusing the clones, of course) while all the interplanetary probes are on their way to other planets.

That's one of the reasons I think that actual programs should be included instead of strategies. The current contracts are just too random and are hardly ever interesting enough to accept. If the players had the choice to do what they want there would be no problem with waiting for long trips to end. Also the 'steps' after each program is completed are too large imo. After landing on the Mun you immediately get contracts focused on going interplanetary and nothing else so no wonder you have to warp to complete them.

Or you could do the never-ending rescue contracts if you wish, because they are tons of fun, right?

[Pthigrivi]

Veeltch I will fight you. 

Haha jk yeah I think we broadly share misgivings about how career works now. I do like your idea for programs, I think the solution I wrote in the rethinking career thread splits the difference there. Regex also suggested time mechanics in which a monthly budget was just a pool that fills and then caps to prevent infinite money. This is interesting too, but still feels like modular infinite money in that you can send up as many launches as you wish so long as they are under the cap. It also seems to preclude roll-over, which means there's no way to strategically 'save up'. Not sure how a similar concept could be applied to research times though.

I know what you mean about sending up lots of concurrent missions. Its what I do because I like managing complicated systems, but I worry that outright precluding one-off missions is maybe too severe for players who like to focus on one big mission at a time. Its a tough balance, offering sensible constraints while still allowing for broad diversity of play styles. 

 

Also sorry Brainlord we totally hijacked your thread haha

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

41 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

 

Yeah we've chatted about this before but the problem with time based mechanics (and the reason they don't exist already) remains the ability to time warp. If you can just time warp through something then all it adds is minutia.

 

 

I don't get your point.

I'm trying to address the issue that: Due to the windfall of science, which IMMEDIATELY becomes a windfall of tech, halfway through every mission, every ship becomes obsolete.

R&D doesn't work that way, it takes time to turn an observation made in the field into new products. 

If you want to Time-Warp through that and leave Jeb stranded on the Mun UNTIL his ship becomes obsolete you certainly can. (you can make it minutia, if you wish)  

But to the contrary of your point, I think t his would stop ppl from timewarping. If, as you're timewarping though that flight to Jool, you get pop-ups saying you have new tech, you might stop and start designing new ships. Which is when you would do that in RL.

Not ten seconds after Jeb lands.

[Pthigrivi]

3 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

R&D doesn't work that way, it takes time to turn an observation made in the field into new products. 

 

Right, but you also don't build spaceships by snapping on and pulling off parts. Some elements of realism are helpful for making a game fun, like physics. Other things from real life don't actually translate well into a fun game experience, like filling out budget proposals. No matter what there's going to be a level of abstraction going on for no other reason than to simplify things and let players have fun. Little jags in realism like instant research don't bother me more any more than clicking "launch" and having a fully assembled spacecraft on the launchpad. It just speeds things along so I can focus on whats fun. Yeah, ships become obsolete as you progress, but I think adding the step of having to time warp through a research node changes that much. For time to be fun, for it to be a real challenge and not just a an extra thing you have to click, it needs to be involved in some way with strategy. A player would have to weigh in their minds the cost of time warping. Life support would do it because you'd have to worry about your little duders running out of food. If you build your ships right however you could do things like put a station up in orbit and then time-warp a probe out to Jool no problem. In these cases though time warp is earned through problem solving, and doesn't amount to being called away from your mission to attend to administrative tasks.

There are a ton of time-based KCT like mechanics that could be interesting if an underlying dynamic could be established, but this is harder to balance than you think. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah we've chatted about this before but the problem with time based mechanics (and the reason they don't exist already) remains the ability to time warp. If you can just time warp through something then all it adds is minutia. What players will do is set something to research, go outside, time warp, then go back in.

There is nothing wrong with this at all. What has happened is NOT nothing, time has passed. 

This is a non-trivial benefit. Career in vernal lacks the progression of time. You're ready for manned flight to Jool a few months after first discovering rockets are a thing. It's insane.

Such a change (a added time mechanic) would be ideal along with a general change to make time meaningful. KSC budgets, for example. Time constraints in contracts that are actually meaningful. What's the time limit on a rescue? 10 YEARS? Many contracts have expirations in years, when you clear the tech tree in DAYS. Adding meaningful time to everything makes this make far more sense, and it is yet another way to add time via small changes to existing mechanics instead of something like KCT (which I like).

 

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

41 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Right, but you also don't build spaceships by snapping on and pulling off parts. Some elements of realism are helpful for making a game fun, like physics. Other things from real life don't actually translate well into a fun game experience, like filling out budget proposals. 

I'll agree to disagree with you on this.

You're like arguing with my brother, I never suggested filling out budget proposals. But R&D does take time.  And ships becoming obsolete halfway through their first flight *is* a problem.

Here: my current solution to this problem is that I no longer spend sci points  as soon as I get them. I let them sit there for a while.  Right now I'm in orbital construction of two ships I'm sending to Eve and then Duna. And right in the middle of that my first Duna Bot lands, 700 sci points. Now I could (some might say should) stop. and redesign everything with new parts. I have time, within the current game, but its just not realistic. So I'm building with the tech I have. 

I'll spend those sci points after they leave,

 

and BTW: I love the idea of every once in a while an R&D building just goes "puff!" 

its sooo Kerbal!

Edited May 11, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[tater]

The whole science--->tech paradigm is odd, anyway.

I might be inclined to use numerous "currencies" for the tech tree. Right now we have two, science, and funds. Add a third, time. So you can spend time to reduce the science or funds costs somewhat, or use can use funds/science to buy faster development. 

I can think of a 4th currency---parts testing, and or "experimental" parts.

Experimental parts would be available during development (perhaps halfway into development in time), but unlike regular parts, they could fail. Parts testing would be that having certain nodes under R&D is what generates parts testing contracts. Ideally they would not be awful (as most are right now). They would make sense. Ground testing. Testing in the atmosphere in a sensible way. Testing outside the atmosphere. They might be suites of missions, like "Explore the Mun." For example it might contain some or all of the following:

Test the LV-909.

Static test: run the test at the launch site.

Flight test. Engage the engine in the normal staging process at alt range X to Y, and at velocity v to V.

Vacuum test: Test the engine in space.

Exhaust and surface debris test: test the engine landed on the Mun.

 

The engine might be experimental, too.

[Pthigrivi]

12 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

You're like arguing with my brother, I never suggested filling out budget proposals. But R&D does take time.  And ships becoming obsolete halfway through their first flight *is* a problem.

 

Its true, I did hijack your thread a bit, sorry about that. Its because your suggestion depends upon a larger discussion we've been having about how time-based mechanics could be integrated. Your argument that R+D should take time is very similar to arguments others have made for rockets, building upgrades, and budgets to take time--that it doesn't make sense that these things would happen instantly and its breaking your sense of immersion. I understand your concern and get why you feel this way. My argument isn't that time-based mechanics are bad, in fact I agree with you and Tater that they would make a clever dynamic in the game. My point is that making these mechanics both meaningful and stable is surprisingly difficult. If time has no cost and is detached from an incentive process then it is an element of role playing and not an actual game mechanic. Time warping through an R+D node is trivial because in KSP time is trivial. So long as your ships are in stable orbits you can time-warp infinitely and nothing bad will happen to you. Time, in this way, doesn't matter. Let me try to be specific about what the problem is:

Many players like to invent stories and role-play through career. For some this includes administrative tasks, and when those tasks don't fit their stories it breaks immersion for them. The trouble is there are many ways to role-play and many ways to interpret stories. Some players like to focus on big Jool motherships or character dynamics between kerbals or grand head-cannon stories about rival nations. Its not fair or smart to tailor the game to a specific way of role-playing. What matters, ultimately, are incentives. Right now getting new parts is the central incentive of career mode. When a player has clicked "research" on a tech node and are presented with a choice of launching an obsolete rocket or simply time-warping through the research phase almost all players will time-warp every time. They won't even think about it. The lure of new parts is just too strong to allow them to busy themselves while they wait. This is, counter-intuitively, a disincentive for obeying time as an element of role-play. You haven't added a new dynamic for them, you've just required them to exit the R+D facility and time-warp through dozens of nodes. The reason they won't have to think about it is because time has no cost. If, as Tater suggests, time is a currency, it is a free currency. The only way to prevent players from time-warping every time is to give time an in-game cost, and this is where the real challenge lies. 

This is mostly for @Veeltch. Say the cost is your reputation decreases over time if you don't complete missions. What does this look like in practice? Lets take a look at a typical mid-game career:

 

- Player launches a probe destined for Jool - one way duration 3 years.

---> If the player time-warps three years their reputation will collapse, so they must run shorter missions to fill in while they wait. They also can't time-warp to the next Duna window for the same reason.

- Player launches a Minmus mission - round trip 15 days.

---> Same problem.

- Player launches a Minmus mission - round trip 15 days.

---> Same problem.

- Player launches a Minmus mission - round trip 15 days.

---> Same problem.

- Moho window opens up. Send probe to Moho - one way 100 days.

---> Same problem.

- Player launches 4 more Minmus missions.

---> Same problem.

- Player launches a Duna mission - one way 300 days

---> Same problem.

- Player launches 20 consecutive minmus missions.

- Duna mission arrives.


You would have to repeat the above 4 more times before the Jool probe even arrived if you wanted to prevent reputation collapse. Encouraging players to run multiple missions is one thing, but this cannot possibly be right. Taters suggestion of tightening up contract deadlines also fails to incentivize because players can just wait to accept contracts until after they've time-warped through administrative tasks. Again, there could be clever ways around this. There might be some way of making time meaningful that also doesn't require players to run dozens of tedious time-filler missions. I just haven't seen one described yet.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Mr. Scruffy]

Hmmm... just a little brainstorm idea here (havent thought this through yet): What if the player could decide when the next board-meeting will be held? Those board meetings would be when you get your rewards and rep-costs. You are currently actively exploring the kerbin system? Well, you probably want to set the date for the next board meeting in a month, maybe. You are exclusively having probes to Jool running? Well, the next board meeting is held in 3+ years from now. All accounting, except immediate expenses on rockets, is in haitus between board meetings. No board meeting -> no income, but also no rep-cost.

 

Edit: Oh yeah, on topic: I like the idea.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

 

6 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Let me try to be specific about what the problem is:

Dude, I have no idea what YOUR problem is (even with all the those words) and that is NOT a request for you to explain it again. You like to TimeWarp through one mission at a time? Be my guest. Does that effect Rep? yes. 

If NASA had launched Voyager 1 and 2, in 1977 and then stopped everything until 1986 when they got to Saturn, the public would have been disappointed. (it would have killed their Rep) But they didn't. They were developing new tech, The Space Shuttle, the ISS, I don't think anyone considered those "time filler missions." 

Time is time. It is not a "currency" it is not a "metric", its not a "dynamic" and it is not trivial. It time. Its a sequence and spacing apart of events,

I have a simple (Indeed I believe unassaultable) proposal, there should be a sequence and spacing apart of the events of acquiring science on another planet and  then using that science to create new products here at home.  NASA sent Apollo 11 to the Moon, then they sent six more nearly identical missions.

It that was KSP, Apollo 12 would have been a Space Shuttle.  

If you have some problem involving time and rep (or whatever) please suggest a solution to that, and do so in a different thread.  (don't apologize for threadjacking, stop threadjacking) 

 

BTW: My rep is 81%, its the beginning of year 2, I have three Mun Bases, Bots on their way to Dres, and landed on Duna,  And I'm building interplanetary cruisers in LKO. (I have no issues with the current rep system.)

Edited May 12, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

@tater I think you may be going too far.

There are contracts to test parts. And I don't think I want to personally run 6 tests on every part before I get to use it. I would like to see part-failure (and maintenance, and repair, and replacement) as a new feature. But that's a different thread.

[Pthigrivi]

Sorry bro, Im really not trying to be difficult, just trying to be helpful and offer feedback. Feel free to ignore the latter part of that post, only the second paragraph addresses your specific proposal. A lot of people have suggested similar ideas, some very recently. Its been an ongoing question and kind of spilled over here but this is your show man. 

I promise, Im not 'assaulting' your ideas, I hope it doesn't sound that way. Just trying to think through how this would effect gameplay for most players.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Wjolcz]

@Pthigrivi I totally get the problem and I agree that it should be be somehow dealt with.

Maybe the vessels/probes could have some sort of flag. It seems like they already do, so maybe a vessel launched would have an objective to have a SOI change in it's trajectory.

So if you have a mission focused on exploring Jool it would work this way:

Launch new vessel -> Have Jool SOI encounter

So as long as there's a vessel with Jool SOI encounter the game assumes it's the vessel destined to complete the 'Jool Exploration Mission' and doesn't take away the rep from you. After you reach the SOI you have to do a bunch of specified experiments, but since that's a completely different part/step of the mission you don't have to worry about the initial goal, which is the SOI encounter.

I guess it's kind of complicated, but so is the contracts system we have right now. 

Sorry for multiposting, but can't edit.

There could also be a time-based completion (or both). You have 30 years to explore the X planet. It's the same way the contracts system works now, but IMO that should be avoided.

[Wjolcz]

Or the Jool Exploration program could have different missions as those 'steps'. First there's the mission to have a Jool SOI encounter, then it decides it's time for experiments.

But, yeah the vessel would either need a 'This goes to Jool' plaque, or the objective be SOI change dependent.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

@tater I think you may be going too far.

There are contracts to test parts. And I don't think I want to personally run 6 tests on every part before I get to use it. I would like to see part-failure (and maintenance, and repair, and replacement) as a new feature. But that's a different thread.

Why 6 on each part? I think it could be narrowed to two easily: static test in the atmosphere and a vacuum test. But I think the second can be calculated somehow (unless I'm wrong. I'm no rocket scientist), so it goes down to one static test mission.

And only engines and somewhat complicated parts would be tested, like decouplers perhaps, but testing only one of them would be enough. The rest is just scaled up versions of the first one that was already tested.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

58 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I promise, Im not 'assaulting' your ideas, I hope it doesn't sound that way. Just trying to think through how this would effect gameplay for most players.

sorry "unassaultable" was not really the word I wanted. (undeniable? unassailable? I'm not sure)

Time Warp (as a feature) is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution. It enables players like you to make time trivial, and players like me to use time. I only timewarp for a half an hour or so at a time, between burns. If I have an hour or a day (or a year of interplanetary transit) I have time to go back to the KSC and build something. Maybe that's why I have a Rep of 81%.

R&D time fits in with this. For players who want time to be trivial, it is. For players like me it'll be much more realistic.

---

I can't believe no one else thinks R&D building blowing up by themselves wouldn't be hilarious.

21 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Why 6 on each part?

sorry I miscounted, you listed 5.

I think that's what the R&D dept is doing in that span of time. (not me)

[tater]

3 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

@tater I think you may be going too far.

There are contracts to test parts. And I don't think I want to personally run 6 tests on every part before I get to use it. I would like to see part-failure (and maintenance, and repair, and replacement) as a new feature. But that's a different thread.

As I said, in that scheme part testing would be A currency to do R&D.

You can spend more funds, and get it faster. You can spend more science and get it faster. You can spend some time parts testing and get it faster... or you can simply spend the base costs and time, or you could spend less science and funds, and have it take longer. It would be up to you.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Yeah, i like that, Tater.

About the exploding science facilities: It may be funny the first time, but to prevent making it a nuisance later, several precautions should be taken, imho. It could for example only happen, if, under the mechanics described by tater, you fuel your R&D with money to a high percentage. It should be a risk you can take, but you dont have to take. Every buck you spend on science could push the risk of something like that happening up a bit - and once it does happen, savescumming wont help much and would get increasingly impractical, if you keep pushing the risk up. Since when exactly it will happen is random, you cant aim to save right before it does happen. It may be should be limited to higher difficulty settings.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

I'm not as keen on blowing up the R&D lab. I'd prefer a chance to lose the progress on a given node, and you're back to square one on that node. Perhaps testing comes into play here. Say there are (and I assume a decent tech tree, not stock, so more like CTT or ETT) 4 parts in a node. Starting R&D tells the game to generate parts test contracts from those manufacturers. Every test you do reduces the (already very low) chance of failure a little. SO you can pay max funds/science for short delivery time, but there is some risk the thing goes X months, then an explosion in the lab puts them back at square 1 and the X month development starts over.

[Mr. Scruffy]

The setback of the node was meant to be the mechanical part of the visual explosion, anyways, if i am not mistaken. It´s not like you´d lose a tier of the R&D building!

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

I don't want to blow up the whole R&D complex just one small building. a little puff ("poof!") it might not even cost money. 

just a visual indicator that "DOH! they did it again!"

Then the tech node takes an extra week and costs another 50 funds,

 

How about this:

A tweak menu for R&D: total budget, a slider for "Safety Precautions" that goes from "Safe&Slow" to "Fast& Risky" I would expect most players going for Risky! 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[Kosmognome]

On 11.5.2016 at 6:09 PM, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

But it should take time. 

And everyone would just warp over it.

 

Unless the much bigger problem of time warping without drawbacks isn#t solved, this will achieve nothing at all.