Science based on logic and context, not points.

[The Aziz]

Hear hear.

There's a lot of discussion regarding the reveal of the upcoming science system, and I think a lot of the arguments are valid. Despite reducing science collection to a single click, extending transmission time and adding discoverables, it's still way too similar to the system from the predecessor. It's still a form of currency, for which you can purchase random things, unrelated to the performed experiments.

oh hey I just got an atmosphere reading from Duna's north pole, LET'S BUILD A NEW BIGGER LANDING LEG FROM THAT!

No, that doesn't sound right, does it?

oh hey I just got a temperature reading from Duna's north pole, it's pretty cold - I think we're up to something but we need more data, let's get another one from Laythe, so we may be able to get some info on cryogenic fuels, leading to construction of new/better/bigger methalox engines.

Or,

A spectrometer on our spacecraft near the sun detected traces of xenon it the solar wind. We should check if it still exists as far as Dres, so we may start developing xenon based ion propulsion systems. Also, the radiation detector tells us it's VERY hot out there, we may need to head down to Moho for a surface sample to create new radiators able to withstand the heat.

Or,

We need to dip a little on Jool's atmosphere to get a composition reading as it may help us improving our hydrogen technology.

 

The above are of course reports of in-progress tech development reports. I don't expect to lock the tech to specific missions, that would kill the creativity, but instead each part, or technology type should have some prerequisites to progress in unlocking it. Experiments taken in various - vague, but specified conditions, for example, as above: To get new methalox tech, you need a thermometer reading, in a cold place, on atmospheric body. It leaves out Kerbin and Eve because they're too hot, you're left with Duna, Laythe and Jool. The more advanced the tech is, the more readings you must take, starting with one (Duna, as it's the easiest). And after each successfully performed experiment you get a +progress on technology deveopment. If you happen to encounter an anomaly/discoverable, you may get an early boost to a future tech.

The missions should reflect the current tech tree progression, you'll simply get missions to places that are required to unlock new technology.

So the parts... Cockpits, fuel tanks, all things made mostly of metal should require surface samples, drilling, that kind of stuff. But to get fuel tanks and engines, you need more info on what's inside so more on the resources, gases, liquids etc. Aerodynamics? Atmo pressure. Ground stuff? Surface samples, seismometer readings, all ground related science. Thermo? Radiation and temperature. Energy? Radiation for solar, exotic fuels for nuclear. I could go on but it's not up to me to develop science system for the game.

So there's that. It's still very much gameplay, but it teaches something.

[Periple]

I respectfully disagree.

I think there are two separate considerations here: verisimilitude (“does this make sense?”) and gameplay (“is this fun?”), and I think that a single science currency is better in both respects than having different types of science coupled to different types of engineering. 

For verisimilitude, the main problem is that in real life, space science doesn’t have a lot to do with space engineering. Knowing more about the atmosphere of Venus won’t help us make better aircraft, and taking a surface sample from the North Pole of Mars won’t help us make better shovels. One is scientific research, the other is engineering research. Any connection between space science discoveries and space engineering is indirect: engineering gets funded because people want to do science, and they want to do science because they care about the discoveries.

A single science currency is a decent abstraction of this. Discoveries get kerbaldom excited, which get them to invest effort into research that let them make more discoveries. You can imagine a whole society between your successful science experiment and unlocking a node: kerbal engineers got hyped about your visit to Duna’s North Pole and help you design better landing legs for your next mission because they can’t wait to see what you’ll discover there, wherever it is. It’s just all abstracted out into science points and tech tree nodes.

If you wanted, you could even add mechanics to flesh this out — like having different engineering research facilities you’d have to invest in to unlock tiers in different kinds of engineering, and calling them Engineering Research Resources rather than Science Points. But I’m not sure how fun that would be, which brings me to the second aspect, gameplay.

KSP is all about designing and flying spaceships and using them to discover places. Anything that is not directly about that needs to be designed to support it rather than distract from it. If you want to add complexity to tech and science — like the different science currencies you’re proposing, or the engineering minigame I sketched out above — their purpose should be to create and incentivize more varied and interesting gameplay. How does having different science currencies do that?

Finally, I do think that KSP1’s science leaves a lot to be desired and I really hope the new version won’t land in “fly to biome, click button, fly back, repeat until tech tree is unlocked.” However, I don’t think the choice of science currency has much bearing on that at all, it’s all about what the conditions for the experiments are and what kinds of missions you have to fly to get there. If we get more experiments like the surface ones in Breaking Ground where you had to do a series of things to complete the experiment, I will be happy — and if in some cases it won’t be a simple success/failure but there will be degrees of success and ways to continue your mission to do more complicated things with your instruments, I will be downright delighted!

 

[Vl3d]

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Hear hear.

There's a lot of discussion regarding the reveal of the upcoming science system, and I think a lot of the arguments are valid. Despite reducing science collection to a single click, extending transmission time and adding discoverables, it's still way too similar to the system from the predecessor. It's still a form of currency, for which you can purchase random things, unrelated to the performed experiments.

oh hey I just got an atmosphere reading from Duna's north pole, LET'S BUILD A NEW BIGGER LANDING LEG FROM THAT!

No, that doesn't sound right, does it?

oh hey I just got a temperature reading from Duna's north pole, it's pretty cold - I think we're up to something but we need more data, let's get another one from Laythe, so we may be able to get some info on cryogenic fuels, leading to construction of new/better/bigger methalox engines.

Or,

A spectrometer on our spacecraft near the sun detected traces of xenon it the solar wind. We should check if it still exists as far as Dres, so we may start developing xenon based ion propulsion systems. Also, the radiation detector tells us it's VERY hot out there, we may need to head down to Moho for a surface sample to create new radiators able to withstand the heat.

Or,

We need to dip a little on Jool's atmosphere to get a composition reading as it may help us improving our hydrogen technology.

The above are of course reports of in-progress tech development reports. I don't expect to lock the tech to specific missions, that would kill the creativity, but instead each part, or technology type should have some prerequisites to progress in unlocking it. Experiments taken in various - vague, but specified conditions, for example, as above: To get new methalox tech, you need a thermometer reading, in a cold place, on atmospheric body. It leaves out Kerbin and Eve because they're too hot, you're left with Duna, Laythe and Jool. The more advanced the tech is, the more readings you must take, starting with one (Duna, as it's the easiest). And after each successfully performed experiment you get a +progress on technology deveopment. If you happen to encounter an anomaly/discoverable, you may get an early boost to a future tech.

The missions should reflect the current tech tree progression, you'll simply get missions to places that are required to unlock new technology.

So the parts... Cockpits, fuel tanks, all things made mostly of metal should require surface samples, drilling, that kind of stuff. But to get fuel tanks and engines, you need more info on what's inside so more on the resources, gases, liquids etc. Aerodynamics? Atmo pressure. Ground stuff? Surface samples, seismometer readings, all ground related science. Thermo? Radiation and temperature. Energy? Radiation for solar, exotic fuels for nuclear. I could go on but it's not up to me to develop science system for the game.

So there's that. It's still very much gameplay, but it teaches something.

It all sounds too complicated if you also think about the fact that we'll have to design missions to get the special resources we need for certain parts.

[chefsbrian]

4 hours ago, Periple said:

I think there are two separate considerations here: verisimilitude (“does this make sense?”) and gameplay (“is this fun?”), and I think that a single science currency is better in both respects than having different types of science coupled to different types of engineering. 

Couldn't have said it better myself, the proposed changes make no sense, mechanically or in world. 

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

but it teaches something.

I'd have to disagree here - Discovering Cryogenics via Duna's poles, for example, doesn't make a lick of sense or teach the person anything.

I do also feel that this specifically locational approach to science ends up just making science a mediocre, one-shot resource system. Assuming its delivered as generally presumed by the community, Resources are the incentive to go specifically to Duna's poles with a specific piece of equipment. Just instead of it being some scientific payload, its a motorized shovel, scooping out that deposit of Dunite, an economical mineral that can be refined into Steel with hydrogen as a byproduct, which may make Duna more suitable to certain ship construction than if you'd focused on a different location for early industry.

[Kerbart]

It's a game. There's always going to be a compromise between reality and keeping the game exciting/challenging. One can argue that it's not realistic togo to the pole for cryogenic research. Then again, we're also teaching that building rockets is as easy as putting Lego's together. I prefer it when there's an obvious — even if it's wrong — relation between the experiment performed and the research it yields, over "after a temperature reading you unlocked ladders"

Both are wrong, but I still prefer one that teaches that choices have consequences  over the other.

[The Aziz]

9 hours ago, Periple said:

space science doesn’t have a lot to do with space engineering. Knowing more about the atmosphere of Venus won’t help us make better aircraft, and taking a surface sample from the North Pole of Mars won’t help us make better shovels. One is scientific research, the other is engineering research.

We've talked about this already and I still stand my ground - but I see some loose connections between experiments and technology, (like, temperature reading==tech related to thermal stuff, so both heating protection and cryogenic tech) and that's the whole point of it.

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

It all sounds too complicated if you also think about the fact that we'll have to design missions to get the special resources we need for certain parts.

Even better. You won't be on uncharted path when you head to get resources, already discovered in earlier science missions. Reconnaisance. I'm not talking about some special resources, 150 of different types, but (aside from exotic materials) something that can be found in local space, but it's the new data, unavailable to reproduce on Kerbin, that makes it worth looking at and using it to build something new, more advanced.

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I prefer it when there's an obvious — even if it's wrong — relation between the experiment performed and the research it yields, over "after a temperature reading you unlocked ladders"

Both are wrong, but I still prefer one that teaches that choices have consequences  over the other.

Exactly, thank you. Just make the science more scienc-y than it is now.

Edited October 24, 2023 by The Aziz

[Superfluous J]

Every game out there has dumb correlations between what you do and what you unlock. How does killing a guy with a pick axe teach you how to make a bow and arrow? Dunno, but it worked for Lara Croft. In Factorio, making ridiculous numbers of random items and then burning them in geodesic domes teaches you all kinds of things, from how to make better conveyor belts to how to make bullets to how to build a rocket ship. In D&D (and most any rpg be it pen/paper or computerized), the main way to improve yourself in EVERY WAY is to kill people.

In all these situations, the mechanic is always the same: Do the stuff that is the main reason you're playing the game, earn things that let you do that stuff .

In KSP, it should be: Fly rockets, get stuff that makes flying rockets better/easier/more/whatever. An easy way to do that is to have us collect "science points" that are somewhat limited and have interesting restrictions on how and where they can be collected, and those "science points" can unlock either everything or a set of things.

That's exactly what they did in KSP1, and that's exactly what they're doing in KSP2. It's how games work and it's (IMO) the right way to do it. The stuff that KSP1 got wrong was that there was no reward for doing original stuff (once you got a surface sample from Mun, the rest of the planets' surface samples are pretty much the same), and you had to click way too many things to do it.

KSP2 seems to be fixing both of those. I'll wait for 0.2 to come out before I decide it actually did fix both of them, but for now it seems to me that that's the goal.

[Jacke]

I've had the same troubles as @The Aziz with KSP1's Science+Tech System.

But I've not been able to think of a better system except changing the unlocks of Tech Nodes by doing achievements, ie. doing something that connects with getting better tech.  Alas, couldn't implement it as it would require me learning to make a .dll and a lot of the guts of KSP1 and I just can't get over the hump to do that.  And that still begs the question: What to do with Science Points then?

So, I looked at KSP1's Science Points as a prestige achievement that allows KSC to have a development program to unlock some new tech.  Thus it can be completely unrelated to it.  And that's why doing it again doesn't help as you're just repeating a mission.  Need to do something new and flashy to get another breakthrough okayed.

[Lowi_Sace]

I tend tot think that, in the background, kerbals exchange science for other science. That it is kinda a valuta for kerbals

19 hours ago, Periple said:

A single science currency is a decent abstraction of this. Discoveries get kerbaldom excited, which get them to invest effort into research that let them make more discoveries. You can imagine a whole society between your successful science experiment and unlocking a node: kerbal engineers got hyped about your visit to Duna’s North Pole and help you design better landing legs for your next mission because they can’t wait to see what you’ll discover there, wherever it is. It’s just all abstracted out into science points and tech tree nodes.

Agree 100%.

Having all kind of different science could make the game to complicated and forces players in a certain gameplay/approach for their missions and progression.

A way to make science directly effect gameplay is for example mapping a planet with orbiters and that having effect on how detailed the planet will be in the map view. Also taking temperature and scanning for resources (From orbit) for planning locations for colonies could be a way for making science directly impact the gameplay. The tech tree will not be as much of the main focus like it was in KSP1. Colonies and resources will be as or more important for progression in the game. Important for me is that the mission system is more integrated with missions which will make more sense

 

[Periple]

I very much hope that scanning and surveying will be a big part of the "Resources" milestone! But that's different from science. 

[GluttonyReaper]

21 hours ago, Periple said:

A single science currency is a decent abstraction of this. Discoveries get kerbaldom excited, which get them to invest effort into research that let them make more discoveries. You can imagine a whole society between your successful science experiment and unlocking a node: kerbal engineers got hyped about your visit to Duna’s North Pole and help you design better landing legs for your next mission because they can’t wait to see what you’ll discover there, wherever it is. It’s just all abstracted out into science points and tech tree nodes.

Pretty much this - regardless of how you rationalise it (it definitely helps that reputations seems to have gone out the window now), the results of multiple experiments just get mulched up into science points, at which point no longer feel explicitly connected to the original experiments, especially considering you, the player, get to pick what those science points unlock and thus effectively are 'guiding' that research. It ultimately just boils down to "more exploration = more tech" which seems pretty reasonable. If anything, I feel like attaching unlocks to (even vague) exploration conditions actually makes it feel more arbitrary, because now actually *are* saying that your temperature reading somehow directly leads to creation of cryogenic fuels.

That said, I do think there should be some gentle encouragement for players to explore a bit more beyond just landing on every body/biome exactly once (doing more unique stuff like flying through icy plumes or driving to lava geysers comes to mind), but hopefully this alleged resource/discoverables system will do something similar.

[Royalswissarmyknife]

On 10/24/2023 at 7:24 AM, The Aziz said:

Hear hear.

There's a lot of discussion regarding the reveal of the upcoming science system, and I think a lot of the arguments are valid. Despite reducing science collection to a single click, extending transmission time and adding discoverables, it's still way too similar to the system from the predecessor. It's still a form of currency, for which you can purchase random things, unrelated to the performed experiments.

oh hey I just got an atmosphere reading from Duna's north pole, LET'S BUILD A NEW BIGGER LANDING LEG FROM THAT!

No, that doesn't sound right, does it?

oh hey I just got a temperature reading from Duna's north pole, it's pretty cold - I think we're up to something but we need more data, let's get another one from Laythe, so we may be able to get some info on cryogenic fuels, leading to construction of new/better/bigger methalox engines.

Or,

A spectrometer on our spacecraft near the sun detected traces of xenon it the solar wind. We should check if it still exists as far as Dres, so we may start developing xenon based ion propulsion systems. Also, the radiation detector tells us it's VERY hot out there, we may need to head down to Moho for a surface sample to create new radiators able to withstand the heat.

Or,

We need to dip a little on Jool's atmosphere to get a composition reading as it may help us improving our hydrogen technology.

 

The above are of course reports of in-progress tech development reports. I don't expect to lock the tech to specific missions, that would kill the creativity, but instead each part, or technology type should have some prerequisites to progress in unlocking it. Experiments taken in various - vague, but specified conditions, for example, as above: To get new methalox tech, you need a thermometer reading, in a cold place, on atmospheric body. It leaves out Kerbin and Eve because they're too hot, you're left with Duna, Laythe and Jool. The more advanced the tech is, the more readings you must take, starting with one (Duna, as it's the easiest). And after each successfully performed experiment you get a +progress on technology deveopment. If you happen to encounter an anomaly/discoverable, you may get an early boost to a future tech.

The missions should reflect the current tech tree progression, you'll simply get missions to places that are required to unlock new technology.

So the parts... Cockpits, fuel tanks, all things made mostly of metal should require surface samples, drilling, that kind of stuff. But to get fuel tanks and engines, you need more info on what's inside so more on the resources, gases, liquids etc. Aerodynamics? Atmo pressure. Ground stuff? Surface samples, seismometer readings, all ground related science. Thermo? Radiation and temperature. Energy? Radiation for solar, exotic fuels for nuclear. I could go on but it's not up to me to develop science system for the game.

So there's that. It's still very much gameplay, but it teaches something.

Had an Idea similar to this for a while yours goes much more in-depth then what I though of though.

Also makes the gameplay better because you can plan your missions around what future tech you want.

Spoiler

Maybe we can get Modders to add this in 2025 when the games finished. 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Royalswissarmyknife

[Scarecrow71]

I cannot believe I am about to say this, and I think that this may be one of the signs of the impending apocalypse, but...I agree with @The Aziz.

Technology should be unlocked based upon research that goes directly towards that particular node, and not an abstract notion of science points.  If you want to unlock a node, you should have to do experiments that satisfy requirements of that node.  Take "Mun Landing", for example.  In order to unlock that, you should have to, say, do the following:

• Travel to and orbit the Mun
• Do a gravity and/or magnetometer reading in orbit (not a fly-by, as this would be a timed thing)
• Do some Breaking Ground stuff and drop objects onto the surface of the Mun and do speed tests on those falling objects
• Map a section of the Mun that you wish to land on later

This is all highly speculative and off-the-cuff, and I'm sure people who are far smarter than I am could come up with the requirements for every node (and probably with better stuff than I have there).  But it's a simple example; you shouldn't be able to take surface samples from Kerbin's oceans and then say "Hey, I think I can land on a celestial body now".

We could even take this a step further and say that the experiments have to be done in certain locations, much like what we think might be coming anyhow.  If you want to get technology to land on the Mun, that gravity reading has to be from Mun orbit, not just within Kerbin's SOI (as an example).  So you did a temperature reading on Minmus?  That doesn't really help you with unlocking technology to deal with heat and radiators needed for a Moho fly-by, does it?  And those soil samples from Eve don't mean doo-doo for mining on Duna.

Again, these are mere examples that could be implemented (but, as I said above, could very well be spec'ed out in far more detail by people far smarter than I am).

[TwoCalories]

This is a good idea in theory, but I think it would only slow down game progression. I think the KSP1's way of generalizing Science Points is good.

But we do need a better science collection system. That I'm pretty sure we can all agree on.

[The Aziz]

40 minutes ago, TwoCalories said:

I think it would only slow down game progression

Hated the way you could grind your way through the tech tree in a few hours.

Now it's gonna be the same grind but with few less clicks, more mass on the ship and only one gathering session per.. what, planet? Biome?

[TwoCalories]

5 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Hated the way you could grind your way through the tech tree in a few hours.

That is true, but associating experiments with science would make things too slow, in my opinion. Maybe there's some kind of balance, like timed science from Kerbalism. With that, you can only do certain experiments in certain situations due to time constraints. For example, doing Mystery Goo or Material Studies when Jool-dipping will be impossible/difficult, because they take 10-20 minutes to complete.

[Why485]

Completely agree with OP. I never liked the science system from the original game. Of all the things in the game, it felt the most "video gamey" and a complete grindy slog to get through. I've never finished the tech tree in KSP1 and instead just do sandbox instead because it just doesn't work for me at all.

An "achievement" style system for unlocking parts in KSP1 makes far more sense to me. Instead of just tediously running the same action group/clickfest experiments, jumping out of the capsule for a second to take notes then popping back in, over and over with minor variations to maximize a magic science number, you'd have concrete goals with concrete rewards. This not only makes much more sense to me from an "immersion" point of view, but it's also just far more interesting a game than the old experiment and science farming techniques of the first game.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Why485

[Periple]

4 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Now it's gonna be the same grind but with few less clicks, more mass on the ship and only one gathering session per.. what, planet? Biome?

I’m not sure and I hope not! There’s a lot we don’t know about it — balance, whether there will be threshold missions to unlock tech tiers, whether some experiments will take time, what the conditions for each experiment are, how it ties in with missions, and so on. We’ll have to wait, see, and offer feedback!

[The Aziz]

3 hours ago, Periple said:

whether there will be threshold missions to unlock tech tiers,

Like what? You have to do a Mun landing to unlock Mun landing tier? What if I don't want to? Sounds VERY arbitrary. In fact, I could probably skip most of the tech tree and build a 1.25m asparagus monstrosity to force my way through the milestone.

3 hours ago, Periple said:

whether some experiments will take time

We know there aren't any and the timers are for data transmission.

3 hours ago, Periple said:

what the conditions for each experiment are, how it ties in with missions,

Well there we are. Tie the conditions and mission types with technology progress and voila.

it's not like you would have to do one mission at a time. If you have a bunch of different technologies to unlock but they all have similar prerequisites (eg. Require two different experiments to perform but in conditions that can be easily done in parallel or very nearly), you can still do it in one mission or two, where's the problem?

[Lowi_Sace]

7 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Hated the way you could grind your way through the tech tree in a few hours.

Now it's gonna be the same grind but with few less clicks, more mass on the ship and only one gathering session per.. what, planet? Biome?

Does not seen to be true. Seems like you need to land on certain bodies before you can make further progression in the tech tree. You can not just unlock everything for only doing mun and minnmus

The devs also confirmed that there is some kind of story-mode behind it and that mission will take the player to a lot of kinds of different places in the system.

[The Aziz]

13 minutes ago, Lowi_Sace said:

Seems like you need to land on certain bodies before you can make further progression in the tech tree. You can not just unlock everything for only doing mun and minnmus

You guys look fine with the game blocking progression until you've done something completely unrelated but very specific. Instead of giving full freedom in exploration but only hiding the tech behind the experiments you would do anyway.

Of course you can't unlock everything with just two moons, I bet they took care of that but.. when do I get an inflatable heat shield? Oh I need x amount of points, let's land on Ike to get that for no reason.

Edited October 27, 2023 by The Aziz

[Superfluous J]

I would hate to be forced to do something very specific (e.g. Land on Ike) to unlock a specific tier of parts.

However it could make for some interesting challenges (e.g. Complete the entire non-landing-on-stuff tech tree without ever landing anywhere)

[Periple]

38 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Like what? You have to do a Mun landing to unlock Mun landing tier? What if I don't want to? Sounds VERY arbitrary. In fact, I could probably skip most of the tech tree and build a 1.25m asparagus monstrosity to force my way through the milestone.

I don't know!

38 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

We know there aren't any and the timers are for data transmission.

I'm afraid I didn't bookmark a source, but I'm pretty sure one of the devs said that some experiments do take time, and there's another field for that which is displayed if applicable. (Somebody please fill in the details/debunk if you know better!)

40 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Well there we are. Tie the conditions and mission types with technology progress and voila.

it's not like you would have to do one mission at a time. If you have a bunch of different technologies to unlock but they all have similar prerequisites (eg. Require two different experiments to perform but in conditions that can be easily done in parallel or very nearly), you can still do it in one mission or two, where's the problem?

There isn't a problem as such, I think your approach is entirely feasible. I just prefer a simpler approach for the reasons I described in my reply to you earlier ITT.

24 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

You guys look fine with the game blocking progression until you've done something completely unrelated but very specific. Instead of giving full freedom in exploration but only hiding the tech behind the experiments you would do anyway.

This actually wouldn't be my preference! It's all in the execution however, so if they do this, I am reserving judgment until I see how it actually plays.

25 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Of course you can't unlock everything with just two moons, I bet they took care of that but.. when do I get an inflatable heat shield? Oh I need x amount of points, let's land on Ike to get that for no reason.

"I need to get more funding for space technology research, let's get some more really cool scientific results with the tech they funded before to get everybody excited about giving it to me" doesn't sound like "no reason" to me!

[The Aziz]

KSP1 had science "funding for tech research" and funds "funding for construction". Now it's reduced to just one funding, but it's still a form of funding (which Intercept wanted to get rid of) instead of research data in pure form.

I don't want currency in my exploration game, it always leads to exploits, which, when discovered, are very tempting. In KSP1 it was grinding for points around Kerbin, in recently released Cities 2 it's the XP system where you can pretty much jump through a bunch of milestones to get all unlocks and a ton of money without doing much other than placing and immediately demolishing a couple dozen buildings.

[Periple]

53 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I don't want currency in my exploration game, it always leads to exploits, which, when discovered, are very tempting. In KSP1 it was grinding for points around Kerbin, in recently released Cities 2 it's the XP system where you can pretty much jump through a bunch of milestones to get all unlocks and a ton of money without doing much other than placing and immediately demolishing a couple dozen buildings.

Your proposed system also has currencies, it just has several instead of one!