Colony design factors?

[Pthigrivi]

I've been playing a few factory-ish games like DSP and Infraspace lately and having a real blast. I think KSP is a very different game and I don't think its wise to get all into belts and splitters and all that fussiness, but there is something compelling about carefully designing a colony for max efficiency in some simplified way. I for sure think it would be fun and in-spirit to think about harvesting ratios, generator requirements and inputs, and balancing resources to produce sustained growth. Its important to keep in mind KSP isn't Factorio and you would never want that many intermediate resources, but in some heavily simplified way getting from raw ores to rocket parts should require at least a little setup. The question that interests me is how would we want to think about plumbing and other design factors?

We already know statics and structure will be a factor; if you build too tall and skinny or get too greedy with cantilevers you might have problems. But what else? Radiation seems like it could matter and might drive some clever setups keeping big reactors and fuel plants at least a little distance from habitation modules. What about internal habitation continuity? Maybe it's not necessary for them to function, but there could be an efficiency bonus built in. Some of Nertea's heat system mods also could be really interesting to incorporate in some form.  Plumbing could be simplified--just consider that most modules have universal, automatic plumbing and resource transfer but that obviously open structural components don't, so you'd want to connect up some systems like fuel plants, and ore smelters to storage tanks and the VAB. 

Or maybe you'd prefer that none of this was a factor and it was all just role play and aesthetics? 

[Guest]

I get the target is making something that doesn't require constant babysitting, and that's ok, but that doesn't tell anything about the complexity of the set-up or the amount of intermediary tiers between a temporary habitation module and a full blown autonomous space city.

If you could automate crew management and rotations with the supply routes system (for something easier to visualize imagine ISS crew rotations) you could introduce homesickness as a concern for pre-colony bases, if you don't make a base/colony population die when is not managed but just stop working you could have any kind of complex life support.

Now, based on that, imagine if the game was set up in a way that makes almost impossible to build a fully autonomous colony in one single place, a way that makes you almost always want to spread out your mining operations over a big area (talking about hundreds of KMs), a system in which you have extracting buildings/craft efficiency coming mostly from the crew present (working 60% slower without crew or with an over-stressed crew). 

A system like that would put most of the complexity not in  the production line but on the transport of resources between the mining outposts and the central colony, the complexity would be mostly in creating and flying all the cargo and crew missions required and the supply route system would turn the babysitting into a infrastructure setup situation.

If you stop before finishing the setup the "not a colony yet" base would just stop working, no deaths or building collapsing, just Kerbals going on strike and machinery reverting to their uncrewed values.

 

That would give the most "Kerbal Gameplay" out of the colony system, while also making the player choose their own favorite mission type by placing the central colony hub in different places (love spaceplanes SSTOs? Why not an orbital city around Laythe served by a fleet of cargo and crew spaceplanes? Want rovers? A Mun base served by long range trucks. Reusable rockets?  No problem, Duna, a space center on the ground and a space city in orbit, with a mining outpost on Ike).

[The Physics Engineer]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Radiation seems like it could matter and might drive some clever setups keeping big reactors and fuel plants at least a little distance from habitation modules.

I'm not sure about the KRUSTY-like reactor (Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology), but the other nuclear reactors should not need any additional distance or shielding as the core is already properly shielded. Maybe some distance would be a good idea if rapid unplanned disassembly has radiation effects. On another hand, rocket engines with radioactive exhaust could be considered for this (I'm guessing configurable in the difficulty settings, like re-entry heat).

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Plumbing could be simplified--just consider that most modules have universal, automatic plumbing and resource transfer but that obviously open structural components don't, so you'd want to connect up some systems like fuel plants, and ore smelters to storage tanks and the VAB. 

It seems to me that some buildings (like reactors and fuel factories) do have pipes, indicating we should expect some plumbing. I would assume connected segments share resources automatically and we can use pipes to connect nearby extractors / depots / factories / reactors to such network.

[shdwlrd]

Radiation protection and heat transference should be taken care of at the LS level so I can't see that being a concern. (Basically an unnecessary worry when building a colony.)

Interconnectivity starts becoming less of a concern the more advanced your colony gets. Starting bases and small colonies (assuming they are on the ground) connected modules would be seen as a luxury where as a fully advanced colony it would be seen as a common thing. (If you remember the fuel factory and power generation show n tells, all the buildings are on foundations with built-in connections.) Now if you want to separate different areas of your colony, I can see the need for connections between the areas. A simple resource connection is all that is needed. 

One thing I can see as a boon is adjacency. It's something that can really help with the resource conversions and game speed. It can also spur reasonably setup colonies where your storages are connected to or near your converters.

[gussi111]

I hope they add something like cables so I don't need to have everything condensed in one spot, for example place solar panels and windmills a little further away to look nicer and then connect with a cable by hand, then you can also make the cable break if an explosion happens next to it so you need to connect it again.

[Pthigrivi]

So let's explore this idea of plumbing. On the one hand theres nothing at all wrong with universal plumbing. Let's call that Option 1. In this version, much like KSP1 if a part is connected to any other part you can consider it plumbed for electricity, fuel, monoprop, crew transfer, ore, whatever. If you want to make it look like it's logical thats completely up to you. The next level, let's call it Option 2, is that there are 2 levels: parts that are plumbed and parts that are not. In this version crew cabs, fuel tanks, reactors, whatever, would be universally plumbed as in Option 1 but some parts like structural trusses would not conduct fuel or crew or anything else (maybe ec) and would require running bypass conduits. Next would be Option 3x--anything more complicated than that. You could for instance require habitation continuity with crew corridor parts to make sure habitation and science labs and greenhouses and such all worked together, but that all other parts were considered universally plumbed for everything else. Or you could have a few types of systems that required continuity--fuel systems (fuel pipes), Processing (resource conveyers), Coolant systems, Habitation, etc. Each of these would have a category of parts that were automatically plumbed when physically attached, or could be connected by point-to-point conduits like the external fuel duct or in the early game flexible hoses. You wouldn't have to get all Factorio about it with logic gates or directionality, but it would make you think a bit about design and linking up like-systems. It could even make things like heat management easier to deal with. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[t_v]

5 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

One thing I can see as a boon is adjacency. It's something that can really help with the resource conversions and game speed. It can also spur reasonably setup colonies where your storages are connected to or near your converters.

I think that giving players more freedom with which parts to put where (and not punishing them for unconventional designs) would be more important than an adjacency system. The other systems feel a bit more easy to work around and still have opportunities for creativity, but adjacency seems a bit more limiting. 

[shdwlrd]

55 minutes ago, t_v said:

I think that giving players more freedom with which parts to put where (and not punishing them for unconventional designs) would be more important than an adjacency system. The other systems feel a bit more easy to work around and still have opportunities for creativity, but adjacency seems a bit more limiting. 

Not really, if you played Infraspace, all that adjacency does is give you a percentage boost to production, nothing more. You can have storage and converters anywhere you want and it doesn't effect the base conversion rates. But if you have them within a certain radius of each other, you receive an output boost. (Basically like adding engineers to a drill or isru.)

@Pthigrivi you're starting to over think the connection idea. In the case of basic utility/resource distribution from the source to destination, you would be better off having no physical connection and just assume that there is a buried cable/pipe/conveyor running from the source to the destination.

When connecting to multiple habitable modules or buildings, then something like a utility corridor is all that is needed. That way resources and Kerbals can move between them. There's no need to get anymore complicated than that. All you need is one flexible part to put in between the modules. 

[Pthigrivi]

8 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

@Pthigrivi you're starting to over think the connection idea. In the case of basic utility/resource distribution from the source to destination, you would be better off having no physical connection and just assume that there is a buried cable/pipe/conveyor running from the source to the destination.

When connecting to multiple habitable modules or buildings, then something like a utility corridor is all that is needed. That way resources and Kerbals can move between them. There's no need to get anymore complicated than that. All you need is one flexible part to put in between the modules. 

Yeah I guess thats Option 2 and there’s nothing wrong with it. Im trying not to pre-judge and arraying the possibilities. And infraspace is great—really simple rules and ratios that unlock a lot of possibilities. 

[t_v]

I see, so essentially placing modules in sub-optimal locations might just mean that you need more of them to keep up with the rest of the base, and differences in rates were going to happen anyways. As long as the bonuses are not so large that missing them is a big punishment… I still think that everyone’s threshold for loss aversion is different and implementing that system would constrict  some people who really want to avoid any losses. 

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah I guess thats Option 2 and there’s nothing wrong with it. Im trying not to pre-judge and arraying the possibilities. And infraspace is great—really simple rules and ratios that unlock a lot of possibilities. 

Since I'm envisioning that type of connections for early bases, and the need for any connections decreases except for any extra greebling you may want to do. It seems to be the most reasonable without making it an annoying pain in the cheeks like in KSP1 and wandering too far into the construction sim games where you have to route everything. I do see what your intentions were. In my opinion anything more complex should be in the realm of mods. And yes, interspace is a good little game to scratch the city and factory builder itch at the same time. And it simple enough not to drown in an ever increasing complexity of the next step.

2 hours ago, t_v said:

I see, so essentially placing modules in sub-optimal locations might just mean that you need more of them to keep up with the rest of the base, and differences in rates were going to happen anyways. As long as the bonuses are not so large that missing them is a big punishment… I still think that everyone’s threshold for loss aversion is different and implementing that system would constrict  some people who really want to avoid any losses. 

Basically yes. It's a simple system but your right, the bonuses can't be too great. It could be used to help colonies that are specialized in a resource achieve better yields with also looking the part. With establishing a new colony in a new star system, the player can construct their initial colony to prioritize what resources they have an immediate need for and change it later if they want. (If I remember right, there will be a way to update your colony through the BAE.)

If a player doesn't want any losses in production, that's pure fantasy. But if they are that loss adverse, the system is flexible enough where they can build the way they want with little sacrifices that shouldn't ruin the game play. (Frankly, I think KSP2 will add limitations to the game that will even throw the veteran players at times and force you to make sacrifices we wouldn't have in KSP1.)

 

[Pthigrivi]

@shdwlrdYou're probably right about that, erring on the side of simplicity. Maybe for that reason I wouldn't suggest proximity bonuses. Infraspace is pretty great but its based on proximity in plan, which gets a little more complicated with broadly interconnected 3-d designs. I think the only reason you'd want continuity of systems is if you wanted a way to visualize and maintain these systems anyway--like making sure your heat was dissipating properly or optimizing ore harvesting and resource processing chains. If you could toggle through and highlight interconnected processing systems (blue), Heat (red), Habitation + LS (green) with little flags indicating inputs and outputs it might be easier to make sure everything was balanced. The other advantage is it would simply be on or off, connected or not connected. You could do deliberate things like route coolant to radiators from a reactor without bleeding heat into nearby parts. So long as they were connected they'd function as a separate system.

But, who knows. Maybe thats not necessary?

And the other thing we haven't talked about at all are local geological factors; like will it be advantageous to build on hills or shorelines for wind energy? Hotsprings for geotherm? Will radiators work more efficiently if they're immersed in water? 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[The Physics Engineer]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

And the other thing we haven't talked about at all are local geological factors; like will it be advantageous to build on hills or shorelines for wind energy? Hotsprings for geotherm? Will radiators work more efficiently if they're immersed in water? 

I do expect those factors to affect, at least in a static way (e.g., wind intensity stays fixed in an area), although dynamic wind intensity could be interesting when building a reliable power grid.

I hadn’t thought about radiators efficiency when submerged in water or other fluids, might be a good suggestion if not already planned @KSPStar @Nate Simpson.

[shdwlrd]

@Pthigrivi it's easy to setup a sphere of influence for adjacency to work in a 3d environment. But I digress, thinking about other games I've played in the past. The more blatant complexity added to the game, the less likely I'm going to play it for long. KSP is a very complex and challenging game. But once you learn the complex parts, it gets easier. No less challenging, but easier. Now, adding anything beyond simple resource connections is adding needless complexity to an already complex game. At some point it will become too much. Would you rather spend your time designing your next mission or troubleshooting why the ore isn't making it through your colony to the isru? Too complex doesn't make for fun gameplay, nor does too easy appease the average player. A good balance is where you have people saying it fine but could be a little easier/harder.

Now, location, location, location. Outside of the obvious plopping a base near resources. It would be interesting to see if geological features will have an impact on colonies. 

[Pthigrivi]

Another problem might be that tracking lots of individual resource flows on multiple colonies could get expensive CPU-wise in time warp, so there are probably multiple reasons you'd want all inputs and outputs on a given base to just go into one big pool. The question for me is should we at least require hoses, so parts would either be connected or not connected. So like:

Resource hose: flexible connection capable of transferring chemical fuels, ec, LS. Deployable by EVA.
Resource conduit: rigid lines also capable of transferring ores, intermediate resources, + exotic fuels. Installed via BAE
Crew tube: rigid crew corridors capable of transferring crew, ec, LS. Installed via BAE

So all you'd need to consider is whether your resource processors were hooked up to your storage tanks, and greenhouses were connected to your habitation and science labs, etc. 

But then what about heat?

Edited January 31, 2022 by Pthigrivi