Budget Cuts?

[HoloYolo]

It's a simple feature. Every once in awhile (varies due to difficulty.), the government that runs the KSC has budget cuts. It would take a small percentage of money away from what you have. It would make you feel more immersed as you actually feel like you're running a space program, and not a profit spaceflight company. What do you think about it?

[Armisael]

Sounds like a great idea for a mod.

[Ozymandias_the_Goat]

It would be both interesting and very annoying

[Chris_2]

28 minutes ago, Armisael said:

Sounds like a great idea for a mod.

I think this should be part of the "ksp realism overhaul" mod

[John JACK]

It will be either annoying, or not noticeable. And good idea for a "KSP economy overhaul" mod.

[mattinoz]

Yes because being screwed over by faceless government isn't bad enough IRL we need in our escape worlds as well.

Edited May 16, 2016 by mattinoz

[cantab]

To have budget cuts, first we would need a budget.

[Snark]

Definitely mod territory-- would be (for me, anyway) infuriatingly rage-inducing in the stock game.  If I've worked hard to get cash for my space program, then having it randomly taken away isn't "immersive" for me-- it simply devalues the work I've already done and gives an enervating "what's the freakin' point, why did I bother" feel.

Especially since real-life budget cuts don't work that way.  It's not as if NASA has a bunch of money just sitting in the bank, and then the (other part of) government comes and takes money out of it.  That's not a "budget cut", that's larceny.

As cantab points out,

2 hours ago, cantab said:

To have budget cuts, first we would need a budget.

IRL, a space agency has (large) ongoing costs, and also needs to fund missions, and receives a regular "allowance" from the government to do so.  And a "budget cut" consists of reducing that allowance, not reaching into NASA's bank account and taking money out of it.  Reduction of income, not subtraction of assets.

So, first, this should be a mod, not stock, since lots of people (myself included) wouldn't like it.  I really hate the idea of any random factor suddenly coming in and greatly affecting the "rules of the game."  It's why I don't run a random-hardware-failure mod, for example.

Second, if you want it to feel like an actual "budget cut", don't make it take away from the player's cash-on-hand, since that devalues players' accomplishments, which is bad.  Instead, I'd suggest that a better implementation would be a (temporary) percentage penalty to contract rewards, which really is an income reduction.  Players could fight their way out of the budget cut by accumulating reputation (i.e. completing missions with rep rewards)... i.e. convincing legislators and/or the taxpaying public "see, we're worthwhile, you should restore our budget."

Key game-design principles here:

• Avoid arbitrarily taking away what players perceive as their hard-earned accomplishments
• Randomness can be okay, but give players a satisfying/fun mechanism for taking action to address the problem

[MaxPeck]

Can work both ways. NASA can have their appropriation reduced, which would impact the whole NASA budget in the future, but NASA can also reallocate its funding internally. For example, they could take funding from manned space flight operations and move it to the political cause du jour, like climate studies. So you could have both options, you could lose appropriated funding, or you could have your own management shift your funding to another program. 

[Snark]

2 hours ago, JJE64 said:

Can work both ways. NASA can have their appropriation reduced, which would impact the whole NASA budget in the future, but NASA can also reallocate its funding internally. For example, they could take funding from manned space flight operations and move it to the political cause du jour, like climate studies. So you could have both options, you could lose appropriated funding, or you could have your own management shift your funding to another program. 

Perhaps... but gameplay always needs to trump realism.  Something that's un-fun will ruin the player's enjoyment of the game, no matter how supposedly "realistic" it is.

The crux is determing "fun" versus "un-fun", given that different people find different things to be fun.  For example, in the current case, clearly the OP would find this idea fun or he wouldn't have proposed it ... on the other hand, for me (and I suspect for a lot of other users), it would be the exact opposite.

In this particular case, I suspect that the "un-fun" contingent is sufficiently populous that it really doesn't belong in the stock game, and would be better suited to a mod.

[RandomUser]

Not sure the U.S. Government occasionally stops by and starts drawing checks in NASA's name, unless I'm missing something. 

In all seriousness though, this would be cool.  Would need to be optional, but cool.  Now to figure out how to career mode... 

[The_Rocketeer]

6 hours ago, Snark said:

Perhaps... but gameplay always needs to trump realism.

Correction: gameplay always needs to trump realism where gameplay and realism are mutually incompatible.

[MaxPeck]

6 hours ago, Snark said:

Perhaps... but gameplay always needs to trump realism.  Something that's un-fun will ruin the player's enjoyment of the game, no matter how supposedly "realistic" it is.

The crux is determing "fun" versus "un-fun", given that different people find different things to be fun.  For example, in the current case, clearly the OP would find this idea fun or he wouldn't have proposed it ... on the other hand, for me (and I suspect for a lot of other users), it would be the exact opposite.

In this particular case, I suspect that the "un-fun" contingent is sufficiently populous that it really doesn't belong in the stock game, and would be better suited to a mod.

No way... I see this as a great spinoff!  Kerbal Budget Simulator.  You open the game and see a view of the KSP.  Enjoy it, it's the last time you'll see it for a while.  Next, you get to forecast your needs 24 months out.  Down to the part.  Then the game will wait 2 days just to look at your estimates, and then spend 2 weeks "processing it".  It will send it back requesting revised figures and demanding you get updated prices for all parts you want to include in your rockets.  It will then demand that you attempt to find other sources, or substitute cheaper parts.  Once you've gotten that done, it will reduce your request by 10% and send it to the KSP administrator for approval.  The next phase of the game has you sitting in front of a spreadsheet trying to explain budgeting to a political appointee who was eating crayons last week and happens to be the brother-in-law of someone in the administration.

IF you get past that, you'll have to go to appropriations, which will take anywhere between one and ten months.  Finally you will be appropriated funds, but won't be able to use them for 2 years, at which point you will have to submit a detailed purchase request for each part you want to put on a rocket.  These have a 50-50 chance of being accepted.  During that 2-year wait, various political initiatives will cause your budget to be reduced further, so that you'll actually probably only get a maximum of 75% of your actual appropriation, and possibly less, depending on your reputation.  Now that you have your money, the Administrator will immediately encumber 10% for his "contingency fund", and depending on your reputation, anywhere from 5 to 20% of your funding will be wasted on frivolous things each month, or re-allocated by the administration to "planetary climate studies" and "educational outreach".  

Finally, your team will build a rocket (you don't get to do that, you're the budget guy).  If it launches successfully, it will trigger a series of reviews, and a chunk of your budget will be spent on PR for the flight and improvements for things the engineers should have figured out BEFORE blasting a billion dollars into space, but somehow didn't.  If the flight isn't successful, it will trigger legislative oversight hearings and a suspension of your program for at least 5 years, during which time you will barely be funded enough to buy a cup-o-noodles, because since you aren't flying rockets, we can better use that money in the Department of Vote Buying.

How on earth could that NOT be fun?

PS: This was pretty much my life for 6 years, albeit not at NASA, but in another part of government.  WORST JOB EVER.

[mattinoz]

2 hours ago, JJE64 said:

No way... I see this as a great spinoff!  Kerbal Budget Simulator.  You open the game and see a view of the KSP.  Enjoy it, it's the last time you'll see it for a while.  Next, you get to forecast your needs 24 months out.  Down to the part.  Then the game will wait 2 days just to look at your estimates, and then spend 2 weeks "processing it".  It will send it back requesting revised figures and demanding you get updated prices for all parts you want to include in your rockets.  It will then demand that you attempt to find other sources, or substitute cheaper parts.  Once you've gotten that done, it will reduce your request by 10% and send it to the KSP administrator for approval.  The next phase of the game has you sitting in front of a spreadsheet trying to explain budgeting to a political appointee who was eating crayons last week and happens to be the brother-in-law of someone in the administration.

IF you get past that, you'll have to go to appropriations, which will take anywhere between one and ten months.  Finally you will be appropriated funds, but won't be able to use them for 2 years, at which point you will have to submit a detailed purchase request for each part you want to put on a rocket.  These have a 50-50 chance of being accepted.  During that 2-year wait, various political initiatives will cause your budget to be reduced further, so that you'll actually probably only get a maximum of 75% of your actual appropriation, and possibly less, depending on your reputation.  Now that you have your money, the Administrator will immediately encumber 10% for his "contingency fund", and depending on your reputation, anywhere from 5 to 20% of your funding will be wasted on frivolous things each month, or re-allocated by the administration to "planetary climate studies" and "educational outreach".  

Finally, your team will build a rocket (you don't get to do that, you're the budget guy).  If it launches successfully, it will trigger a series of reviews, and a chunk of your budget will be spent on PR for the flight and improvements for things the engineers should have figured out BEFORE blasting a billion dollars into space, but somehow didn't.  If the flight isn't successful, it will trigger legislative oversight hearings and a suspension of your program for at least 5 years, during which time you will barely be funded enough to buy a cup-o-noodles, because since you aren't flying rockets, we can better use that money in the Department of Vote Buying.

How on earth could that NOT be fun?

PS: This was pretty much my life for 6 years, albeit not at NASA, but in another part of government.  WORST JOB EVER.

You missed the cut scene video of the committee members touring the facilities making grand announcements about full funding for the exciting venture. Then going back to committee and demanding cost savings and a job for their cousin. 

[Wjolcz]

How about running a proper space program instead of the "career" mode we have right now?

[Kaizen]

Well I think as well as budget cuts, we should also have random budget increases to balance it out, with maybe some long (5/10/15 year) term trends up/down.

Also the bduget increases if you are going to another planet, proportinatelly to the planet being visitsed and all mission costs

so like...

Year 7: -3.2%

Year 9: +1.9%

Year 11: +0.2%

Year 13: -2.9%

Year 15 +3.4%

Year 17 -2.3%

(10 year trend (randomly selected up/down and if 5/10/15): -2.9%

Year 19: 1.8%

Year 21: 2.2%

Year 23: 4.1%

Year 25: -1.7%

Year 27: -0.8%

Year 29: 2.4%

Year 31: 2.7%

Year 32: -1%

(15 year trend: +9.7%)

5 year trend min/max up/down, +-2.7%

10 year trend min/max up/down: +-6.8%

15 year trend min/max up/down: +-11.1%