Another Space Program - Difficult Setting

[CaliBoy]

I was thinking about this a few days ago.. 
When we fail our mission in the Hard Difficult Setting, we have to redesign and relaunch the same rocket. That's something almost daily for all ksp player, BUT what if every time you fail a launch or delay the mission, another space agency complete the contract before your space agency?

If you failed to put Jeb in orbit, another space agency could try and put a kerbal in orbit, and this will cost you lost reputation and have a discount in your contract.
This could be a more complex system than it looks, maybe if you send a kerbal to orbit using less resources than the competitor, you could gain a reputation for effectiveness.

Maybe, if you use it with mods like Kerbal Construction Time, it would be even more challenging, you must deliver the engines and make a rocket fly before the competitor develop a "SharShip".


Sorry if there's many english typos!

[BekfastDerp13]

So you are suggesting a space race-like difficulty. It seems fine, as long as it would only be on hard (or have its own seperate gamemode). New players probably wouldn't want to race against time.

[Maria Sirona]

You thinking something like Mars Horizon?

[Vl3d]

On 3/16/2022 at 4:52 PM, CaliBoy said:

another space agency complete the contract before your space agency

This can simply be done in the contract text proposal, it doesn't really change gameplay. As long as contracts are focused on adventure and discovery (like world firsts), and not like "put a satellite in this type of orbit" or "dock and exchange crew close to this celestial body". Actually I would prefer friendly competition and collaboration - like having to build some components for a greater common mission or space station, instead of things like blue vs red kerbals.

On 3/16/2022 at 4:52 PM, CaliBoy said:

Kerbal Construction Time

Actually, I feel like something similar to KCT or paying extra for tooling should be stock, because it encourages building rocket families and evolving prototypes, instead of falling for the trap of it being so easy to build a new first stage for each mission to later realize that you have to rediscover the correct flight profile or you have to revert because you forgot RCS or reaction wheels or auto-struts.

 

 

[CaliBoy]

On 3/16/2022 at 1:18 PM, BekfastDerp13 said:

So you are suggesting a space race-like difficulty. It seems fine, as long as it would only be on hard (or have its own seperate gamemode). New players probably wouldn't want to race against time.

Of course it's a experienced players thing, after 300 hours of ksp, you'll want to face tougher challenges! and you could test your efficiency against the CPU

On 3/19/2022 at 11:09 AM, Maria Sirona said:

You thinking something like Mars Horizon?

NOPE, i was thinking something more real, just a few images from the opponent craft or a Victoria2-alike journal, something that isn't too complex, but also isn't to simple.

On 3/19/2022 at 1:17 PM, Vl3d said:

This can simply be done in the contract text proposal, it doesn't really change gameplay. As long as contracts are focused on adventure and discovery (like world firsts), and not like "put a satellite in this type of orbit" or "dock and exchange crew close to this celestial body". Actually I would prefer friendly competition and collaboration - like having to build some components for a greater common mission or space station, instead of things like blue vs red kerbals.

Actually, I feel like something similar to KCT or paying extra for tooling should be stock, because it encourages building rocket families and evolving prototypes, instead of falling for the trap of it being so easy to build a new first stage for each mission to later realize that you have to rediscover the correct flight profile or you have to revert because you forgot RCS or reaction wheels or auto-struts.

 

 

Sure, the collaboration thing could be a "Easy mode" of this mode!

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/16/2022 at 2:52 PM, CaliBoy said:

we have to redesign and relaunch the same rocket

That sounds less like gameplay and more like a burden to gameplay. KSP already makes you spend all your funds again to relaunch a rocket (besides the loreside implication that the VAB rebuilds the rocket regardless of gameplay), we don't need to redesign the wheel here.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[Pthigrivi]

I've always thought space races, whether from other competing kerbal nations or other corporate space agencies could be abstracted in the form of World First goal dates for different exploration objectives, that way the player can fill in for themselves and their own desired role play without the game having to spell our your competitors with text. It's simply implied. You could also soften the consequences for missing them by making them bonuses, so players who just wanted to play at their leisure could ignore an extra 20% reward or whatever. 

In writing terms the specifics of the competitor lie in the negative space, in the mystery which the writer leaves to the reader to imagine as they wish.
 

On 3/19/2022 at 12:17 PM, Vl3d said:

Actually, I feel like something similar to KCT or paying extra for tooling should be stock, because it encourages building rocket families and evolving prototypes, instead of falling for the trap of it being so easy to build a new first stage for each mission to later realize that you have to rediscover the correct flight profile or you have to revert because you forgot RCS or reaction wheels or auto-struts.

I feel like if time is a factor beyond resource collection you really want to do your waiting up-front. Like its better to have research take time than to have rocket construction take time, because it happens once rather than hanging the player up each time they push "Launch", which for me could be half a dozen reverts before I feel really confident I'm remembering everything. All things being equal its also better to have as few clocks to watch as possible, which is why you don't really need both research time AND construction time. Research time does the work. In fact, if you push waiting even further back--say to processing raw data collected from the field into usable, spendable science--its even better, because then you can just build up a pool of science over time that can be spent at once or incrementally in the Science facility and immediately go to the VAB to play with the fun things you've bought. Its just a way of consolidating the number of times you have to worry-down pressing the time warp button. 

So as a principle design is iterative, and as much as possible the game should extract wait-times from any iterative player behavior.  

Edited March 21, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

@Pthigrivi do you build a new booster for each payload or build booster families per weight to LKO and diameter?

[Pthigrivi]

Just now, Vl3d said:

@Pthigrivi do you build a new booster for each payload or build booster families per weight to LKO and diameter?

I think lots of players do different things, but I usually develop a few standard SSTO launch vehicles which can safely de-orbit and tail-sit in 3-5 weight classes. From time to time I'll use disposable side boosters but I try not to. In each case they're saved as subassemblies, and once I know the mass and diameter of my desired payload I pick the appropriate launch vehicle. You could probably play more on-the-nose if you developed each launch system to each payload, but I think for players who have been at this for years you learn that your own design time is more precious than 50 or 100 m/s of dV. 

[Vl3d]

It's true, I've wasted so much design time for precision that I'm searching for incentive to evolve and reuse first stages. Your idea is beautiful, but I like to pretend designs are somewhat more realistic. I hope we will have booster reuse by recorded flights in KSP2 - fly once, manually return it to base, and afterwards for that model you don't need to repeat as long as parameters are similar. Mass production of rocket models is also a great incentive to work on a design longer. Too bad we have no idea what we're going to get.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

It's true, I've wasted so much design time for precision that I'm searching for incentive to evolve and reuse first stages. Your idea is beautiful, but I like to pretend designs are somewhat more realistic. I hope we will have booster reuse by recorded flights in KSP2 - fly once, manually return it to base, and afterwards for that model you don't need to repeat as long as parameters are similar. Mass production of rocket models is also a great incentive to work on a design longer. Too bad we have no idea what we're going to get.

There's a lot we don't know, like they have a simulator now? that might mean reverts could be a thing of the past? So who knows. My feeling is stuff like reusable boosters and modules are best handled by a recovery mechanic. Like, anything recovered can be saved and redeployed for free minus some percentage of its recovery distance from KSC or another off-world base, or just scrapped for resources. You could then augment saved vehicles, add parts, remove parts, and those would just be additions and subtractions from launch cost. 

Or maybe that all creates more work and management than it solves? Anyway agreed, so many unknowns. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Pthigrivi