Currency: sorely missed at this stage of development

[kerballs]

I will preface by saying I know currency is not planned for KSP2.

And I understand why: the addition of more complex resource management systems later in development are (in the eyes of the dev team) sufficient to 'replace' the challenge/reward cycle of currency in KSP1. However, I do still feel that currency was a key part of my motivation to play KSP1 and is something I will miss. Let me explain.

Until For Science was released I had zero motivation to play KSP2. I do not do well in a sandbox. My particular flavor of ADHD derives motivation and joy from tiered unlocks and restrictions, and terrible melancholy and boredom when allowed a totally blank slate with free everything. So like the rest of you, I was thrilled when 0.1.0 gave us an actual gameplay loop. This is how Early Access should have been released.

(As an aside; Take-Two made an enormous PR goof pushing the developers to release a mostly broken sandbox. They undermined their developers terribly and presumably broke a lot of trust. I hope someone in management realizes that their decision had a massively negative impact. Take-Two chose to make this investment in KSP2 knowing that it was going to be complex and bumpy road to full release: they should have either trusted their development leads to know when the game was ready, or not made that investment at all. Anyway.)

I'm about 100 hours into KSP2, about 70 of those after 0.1.0, and it's very enjoyable! I have not played KSP1 (which is still more stable and features many mods I loved) since For Science. This is 1/3 because I want to support KSP2, 1/3 because KSP2 is genuinely beautiful and fun and contains baseline improvements, and 1/3 because I'm motivated by the new challenges.

But I'm still missing currency!

I have no motivation to optimize my spacecraft beyond what is needed to achieve mission goals. Some form of finite resource, or ongoing challenge/reward system, is the ONLY way to implement this type of gameplay motivation! There is simply nothing to stop me from strapping as many "expensive" rockets as I want to a ridiculously overbuilt station core. There are no limits.

One of the things I love most about KSP1 is actually the early game grind. You have to game the contracts and do some repetitive launches to earn money.

Sometimes, later in the game, you blow a bunch of cash on a big rocket and the mission fails. For me there is actually joy in having to grind some simpler unmanned missions to earn money for the more important stuff. It's evocative of real-life challenges. Real-life engineering isn't just about mission profile optimization, it's about economy, and that's cognitively stimulating!

 

 

[Spicat]

2 hours ago, kerballs said:

I have no motivation to optimize my spacecraft beyond what is needed to achieve mission goals. Some form of finite resource, or ongoing challenge/reward system, is the ONLY way to implement this type of gameplay motivation! There is simply nothing to stop me from strapping as many "expensive" rockets as I want to a ridiculously overbuilt station core. There are no limits.

Resources perfectly accomplish this goal. I don't know why they should implement currency where all of its mechanics can be replaced with resources.

Edited February 1 by Spicat

[The Aziz]

People who miss currency keep forgetting that it only means anything when launching from Kerbin. Unlimited parts for limited money. Yeah sure, that works. But on Gurdamma? Limited money and resources to build vessels? That stops being fun really quickly.

[NexusHelium]

 

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

People who miss currency keep forgetting that it only means anything when launching from Kerbin. Unlimited parts for limited money. Yeah sure, that works. But on Gurdamma? Limited money and resources to build vessels? That stops being fun really quickly.

And how would you expect to purchase parts for things when you are literally in another star system? It's not like you can just call up Northrop Kerman and ask them for an extra booster 

Edited February 2 by NexusHelium

[rayoyrayo]

I agree with you that in the short term being able to just build a 30000 part rocket on day 1 loses the charm of getting off of kerbin.

 

I have faith the devs will figure out a way to re gate the game with ksp upgrades etc once colonies are in as I assume there are parts at ksp that can be upgraded somehow 

[Kerbart]

I don't find it lacking. If you play the game in exploration mode, you will find that even without currency you can build and launch rockets.

[Periple]

I think currency could work once resources are online, but only in the early game. Resources could have a currency cost on Kerbin. There would have to be a way to earn it, perhaps with the mission system, but it would have to be somehow less grindy than in KSP1 and its silly random contract generator.

I would not want to have currency involved once I’ve got my own resource production going.

[DaveLChgo]

Simple fix.   Currency will be a resource that will only be attained and consumed on Kerbin.  And as far as building various items in the VAB you must have x amount of the 'resource' to use said parts.

But joking aside.  I do see both sides of the coin very much.    In KSP1 that was indeed part of the challenge to complete contracts to get extra cash. For me it was to the point that every part of every craft flown was recovered and recovered as close to KSC as possible to increase the cash back percentage.  Boosters and every stage had enough parachutes on them to bring them down safely to get the cash.   A second stage normally just sent adrift in Kerbin orbit had retro rockets that I waited to fire again so that it could be recovered as close to KSC as possible.   I even had a crawler next to the launch pad that had huge fuel tanks, several drills, several resource converters.   I sent the rockets to the pad with no fuel, cause it cost less.  Then pulled the crawler up to the pad and connected the two craft via pipes or docks.  After the connection was established the rocket would be filled with the "free" fuel.     I enjoyed that.    (please disregard the cost of the crawler, versus cost of the fuel and how many fillings it would take to break even.  The crawler was federally funded and buried as a line item in the budget, so yeah essentially even that was 'free')

Now "realistically"  (this is a game after all)  even in KSP 2  one is still going to rely on Kerbin to send components to other planets.  Until you have sent enough components to establish a factory of some sort.  Only then would you be able to start cutting the cord.  But for me, even that shouldn't be until the middle portion of the game.   So I do understand the eventual need for using resources.   But being able to just plop a factory part onto a rocket and establish an offworld factory in month one would be a bit anticlimactic.

Edited February 2 by DaveLChgo

[MirageNL]

I could understand an infinite resource pool at Kerbin. I imagine Kerbalkind to be fiercly dedicated to its space program, so money restrictions always felt a bit out of place in KSP1. It didn't really work either, as after upgrading KSC it wasn't much of an issue anymore. KSP1 also had technical limitations like maximum size and mass, which did feel a bit more natural. Instead of upgrading KSC with money, bigger rockets could be made possible by unlocking new science tiers. However, that doesn't intrinsically reward efficiency, it just places restrictions on how you should play the game, which isn't very Kerbal. For me personally , an efficient rocket is a beautiful rocket, which is already its own reward.

[Bej Kerman]

21 hours ago, kerballs said:

But I'm still missing currency!

I have no motivation to optimize my spacecraft beyond what is needed to achieve mission goals. Some form of finite resource, or ongoing challenge/reward system, is the ONLY way to implement this type of gameplay motivation! There is simply nothing to stop me from strapping as many "expensive" rockets as I want to a ridiculously overbuilt station core. There are no limits.

One of the things I love most about KSP1 is actually the early game grind. You have to game the contracts and do some repetitive launches to earn money.

Sometimes, later in the game, you blow a bunch of cash on a big rocket and the mission fails. For me there is actually joy in having to grind some simpler unmanned missions to earn money for the more important stuff. It's evocative of real-life challenges. Real-life engineering isn't just about mission profile optimization, it's about economy, and that's cognitively stimulating!

Why currency? All the challenges you described can be filled in with a generic resource, the same that'll drive colonies and orbital construction, without a currency system adding unneeded complexity.

8 hours ago, Periple said:

Resources could have a currency cost on Kerbin. There would have to be a way to earn it, perhaps with the mission system, but it would have to be somehow less grindy than in KSP1 and its silly random contract generator.

What does this add that a resource allowance wouldn't?

Edited February 2 by Bej Kerman

[Periple]

15 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What does this add that a resource allowance wouldn't?

Flexibility, you could obtain the resources you want when you want them.

[pschlik]

I do wonder how resources will interact with launches from KSC. From what I recall, the only tiny hint there's ever been about resources and Kerbin is that Kerbin doesn't have much (any?) uranium. (Of course, Kerbin will probably lack other obscure things to incentivize finding them in nature. ) Will other resources be entirely infinite? Who knows, devs probably won't spill those beans now.

I totally agree that Kerbin could do with some sort of limitations beyond just 'sorry, the helium-3 is in another castle' to get those rocket engineer gears turning (having a few limits can lead to much more creativity and fun!) But in my opinion, the devs are right to say money doesn't belong. Here's my alternative: I think it would be more interesting if KSC produced resources at a finite rate with a finite (but large) stockpile. In this plan, the variety of resources available, the speed of production (ie: deliveries from manufacturers, as opposed to player-built factories), and the size of the stockpile could all increase as more technology is unlocked to scale with player ambition. This would add a subtle incentive to be efficient with resources without being too punishing or grindy since this is the early game (run out of rocket parts? Just timewarp until the next delivery from Rockomax-and hope you don't miss that transfer window!) Very large-scale missions could consume months' worth of stockpiled resources, rewarding those who get a head start on assembling the next mothership or thought ahead and built a reusable mothership already. Recovery of stages on Kerbin would make sense as the rocket parts would return to inventory (I'm assuming this is how colonies will operate too) allowing for more frequent launches. Differing delivery rates of different resources would create differing perceived costs for said resources (SRBs would actually be useful as solid fuel comes in bulk and takes the load off the methalox supplier, while uranium and plutonium come in at a trickle, so you have to choose wisely to send up that SWERV, reactor, or big RTG as you won't have enough to build a second one for a whole year.)

Of course, colonies should offer this exact sort of emergent gameplay and problem solving, so how does adding it to Kerbin do better than a money system? Well...It trains us players on how resources work (which parts require which resources? are there resources I use more than others? if I don't have what I need, how do I redesign to fit my current limitations?) in a simplified manner (won't need to scan for resources, build mines and factories, nor set up delivery routes) thus offering a gradual introduction to colony resource management and giving an incentive to make those colonies in the first place (I like using the SWERV, but uranium comes in so slowly-let's find uranium somewhere else!)

Compare this to funds. Funds wouldn't teach you anything about colony resource management because there's nobody on the Mun to take your funds and give you rocket parts. This also increases the perceived jump in difficulty when going to colonies as you suddenly need to un-learn about funds and learn about whatever a uranium is and how to find it (hey why does the SWERV suddenly say it needs rocket parts and uranium? I thought it just needed 300,000,000 kerbucks!) And that's just the player perspective; imagine being the developer who has to design, build, test, and bugfix and entire game mechanic which exists entirely to become obsolete after 20 hours of gameplay into a 200 hour campaign. (The devs have expressed multiple times that they don't want parts of KSP2 to simply become obsolete because you unlocked something better. Now, how the Terrier will be useful on Ovin is anyone's guess, but they aren't going to waste time making content that is destined to become obsolete.) It just makes more development sense to have one resource system used throughout the entire game.

[Jeq]

I really hope that Kerbin launches will have limited resources at start and you need to build bases to different parts of kerbin to get access to more resources before going to orbit or even escape atmosphere.

[steveman0]

I could envision a design where production rates on Kerbin are very limited early on but can be upgraded, maybe very much like any other colony, using resources only obtainable from other planets/moons. For example, maybe helium isn't available there at first, but some small production of it becomes available when you upgrade local power production using uranium and mining operations from some other exotic metal.

This might be true of other colonies where the array of resources is diverse but each place specializes in select ones unless you upgrade to enable extraction of some rarer ones.

[Emanuel01]

1 hour ago, pschlik said:

I do wonder how resources will interact with launches from KSC. From what I recall, the only tiny hint there's ever been about resources and Kerbin is that Kerbin doesn't have much (any?) uranium. (Of course, Kerbin will probably lack other obscure things to incentivize finding them in nature. ) Will other resources be entirely infinite? Who knows, devs probably won't spill those beans now.

I think this topic is of extreme importance and hope the devs are giving it proper attention. Below are my points of concern/doubts regarding resources: 

• If rare resources tickle down on Kerbin over time, what would prevent players from time warping until they're "jacked to the birds" on Uranium or Helium-3? 
• If basic resources (Ore, LFO, Mono) are infinite on Kerbin, what's the point of optimizing rockets early game? 
• Will the KSC be editable and expandable or will it remain a locked structure? Will resource infrastructure in Kerbin work in-game or behind the scenes? (In the sense that I'd get a resource block if I blow up my LFO tanks near the launch pad)
• Will the upgradable facilities from KSP1 come back?

 

 

Edited February 2 by Emanuel01

[magnemoe]

17 hours ago, NexusHelium said:

And how would you expect to purchase parts for things when you are literally in another star system? It's not like you can just call up Northrop Kerman and ask them for an extra booster 

Last base I made in KSP 1 outside the Ike one who crashed the save. 
 

Top left is an standard base as the stuff I push outwards. Standard base like US standard battleship. Design works so run with it. Its an much lower capacity version of the Minmus base. 
to the right is the main factory, downwards two modules with lab, workshops and farms also housing.
To the right Minmus utility craft, to the right the main mining rig, an secondary construction pad, resource storage and reactor and uranium enrichment.
I could obviously make another site to mine and enrich uranium and send back to KSC but at this time kerbals was cheaper so not needed.  

[Superfluous J]

I know these are for the devs but I can't resist...

8 hours ago, Emanuel01 said:

If rare resources tickle down on Kerbin over time, what would prevent players from time warping until they're "jacked to the birds" on Uranium or Helium-3? 

One viable answer is my mind is "The same thing that keeps us from time warping directly to a Duna or Jool window: Nothing."

Another idea could be that you don't get resources over TIME, but as rewards for accomplishing things. Resources would then be exactly like cash in KSP1 but would not be some tacked-on extra thing that only matters on Kerbin.

8 hours ago, Emanuel01 said:

If basic resources (Ore, LFO, Mono) are infinite on Kerbin, what's the point of optimizing rockets early game? 

Again, there could be no reason. I would accept that but like your question implies you feel, I'd also prefer to have to optimize.

Like above, though, basic resources could also be granted as reward for accomplishing tasks.

One tweak on this idea: You could be given a certain amount of resources to complete a specific task. When you accept a mission (which isn't actually a mechanic in the game right now mind you) the Kerbal government grants you X amount of "ore", Y amount of fuel, and Z amount of "rareifium" or whatever. That's all you get to complete the task and if you can't do it oh well, they take it back and you have to try a different mission.

8 hours ago, Emanuel01 said:

Will the KSC be editable and expandable or will it remain a locked structure? Will resource infrastructure in Kerbin work in-game or behind the scenes? (In the sense that I'd get a resource block if I blow up my LFO tanks near the launch pad)

Will the upgradable facilities from KSP1 come back?

I expect they're not planning on having the KSC be upgradeable or changeable, as the focus in KSP2 is not on Kerbin but on setting up interplanetary and then interstellar colonies.

 

[Bej Kerman]

13 hours ago, Periple said:

Flexibility, you could obtain the resources you want when you want them.

Like just earning resources instead of earning tokens that let you get the same resources? It's an unnecessary step.

[steveman0]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

I expect they're not planning on having the KSC be upgradeable or changeable, as the focus in KSP2 is not on Kerbin but on setting up interplanetary and then interstellar colonies.

KSC is already a colony though. Although I could certainly see it being a special exception, it seems like it would be trivial to treat it like any other with it having the same or at least similar options for upgrading. This would be a rather easy system to leverage for progression's sake.

[Periple]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Like just earning resources instead of earning tokens that let you get the same resources? It's an unnecessary step.

No, it’s not. If you earn resources directly, you’re locked into the specific resources you’ve stockpiled. If you’ve saved currency, you can use it to buy the exact resources you need when you need them. A mountain of steel might be of no use to you if you’re missing 100 kg of uranium.

Are you able to figure out the difference from here on out on your own or do you need me to spell it out for you in more detail?

Edited February 3 by Periple

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Periple said:

No, it’s not. If you earn resources directly, you’re locked into the specific resources you’ve stockpiled. If you’ve saved currency, you can use it to buy the exact resources you need when you need them. A mountain of steel might be of no use to you if you’re missing 100 kg of uranium.

Yes, in the scenario you imagined where you only  earn steel.

1 minute ago, Periple said:

Are you able to figure out the difference from here on out on your own or do you need me to spell it out for you in more detail?

My bad for not wanting redundant systems that only muddy gameplay up, for the sake of the above invented problem.

[Periple]

50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Yes, in the scenario you imagined where you only  earn steel.

I see, I do need to break it down for you in more detail. I will try.

Suppose you have three resources, steel, uranium, and propellant. 

Suppose you need these in various proportions to build your craft.

Scenario one: your missions reward you in these resources, in various proportions.

Scenario two: your missions reward you in currency which allows you to buy these resources when you need them: fuel for $1 a ton, steel for $10 a ton, and uranium for $100 a ton.

Suppose you’re part way through a campaign and have just unlocked an engine that needs 100 kg of uranium, 10 tons of steel, and 100 tons of fuel to build.

Suppose in scenario one, you’ve built up a stockpile of 1 ton of uranium, 400 tons of fuel, but only 5 tons of steel because you’ve been using a lot of it.

Suppose in scenario two, you’ve stocked the equivalent in currency, that’s $550 worth.

Under scenario one, you’re missing 5 tons of steel but sitting on 300 extra tons of fuel and 900 extra kg of uranium.

Under scenario two, you can buy the resources you need when you need them for $230, and have $320 left for another mission.

Question: which of these scenarios gives you more flexibility? 

a) Scenario one

b) Scenario two

Important note: If you answer with anything other than “a” or “b,” I will be forced to conclude that you are not engaging in a good-faith discussion and will stop engaging with you further.

 

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Periple said:

Question: which of these scenarios gives you more flexibility?

I'd guess the scenario where you were more careful with your resources, or the scenario where the game lets you trade in resources of one type for another, or the scenario where uranium and steel are lumped into the same generic resource budget when inside the VAB (say that parts take the amount of resources specified on the tin, and 1 unit of uranium counts to x units of resources).

Edit: If someone asks you to pick from two scenarios, and they will happily throw accusations of bad faith if a viable third scenario is proposed, that in itself is bad faith. Would much rather see people not trying to railroad discussions in their favour. Figured I'd throw that out there for future readers.

Edited February 3 by Bej Kerman

[The Aziz]

So instead of space exploration simulator (setting up mining outposts for different resources, trade routes, orbital shipyards so that your desired colony extracts or receives exactly the resources it needs) there should be a money sim, where the resources get pulled out of Jeb's bottom...?

And if someone, ever, mentions human economy in on of these posts...

[Periple]

35 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

So instead of space exploration simulator (setting up mining outposts for different resources, trade routes, orbital shipyards so that your desired colony extracts or receives exactly the resources it needs) there should be a money sim, where the resources get pulled out of Jeb's bottom...?

And if someone, ever, mentions human economy in on of these posts...

At least I’m very much looking forward to the resource extraction and distribution game, and at that stage an additional currency cost would be actively bad.

I still think currency might have a function as an early-game constraint. Resources are currently unlimited at KSC, which removes an incentive for efficiency. Constraining them with a currency cost would be simple and straightforward. There are other possibilities too but I’m not sure they’re necessarily better — if they replenish over time it incentivizes you to warp around it which is dull, and if they replenish through missions you risk soft-locking yourself in the worst case and grinding missions you don’t otherwise enjoy in the best case.

I don’t feel particularly strongly about this though, and I certainly don’t want a money sim for its own sake.