Engineering system to complement Science-based tech tree

[boomerdog2000]

On the concept of retrieving vessels and parts at a discount. If the game probably can't recognize the whole sub assembly should it just be on a per part basis? After all, landing most craft larger than a command pod from orbit isn't necessarily very easy.

[sharpspoonful]

This is definitely not the case in reality. All Shuttle components had to go through serious inspection and refurbishing before being flown again, and the cost wound up being much higher than anticipated in the original Shuttle proposal - higher than comparable expendable systems, in fact.<...>In KSP I don't think it's worth managing the equivalent of a shuttle fleet and paying attention to refurb cost vs construction cost. Instead I think there should be a cost refund for recovering craft of around 50% max, and potentially gaining additional EEP as well from inspecting the flown part. The recovered cost is another candidate to benefit from the EEP system: recovery percentage could increase the more experience you have with a part/subassembly.

With this being said, plus the rest of the discussion, this would be a neat idea and ties in well with the sub-assemblies addon. With that being said, perhaps this should only count towards the core parts of the lifter design (engines, fuel/RCS tanks, etc). This way you can avoid any "farming" issues. You can make minor edits to your lifter designs for payload differences and avoid anyone attempting to farm XP.

[DChurchill]

Meh. It's a single player game, if someone wants to farm, more power to 'em. People are going to find ways to game the game.

In any case, if Squad decides to implement this idea, it will still have to fit within their framework and vision. So getting into minutia is probably a waste of time. That being said, I certainly hope they do implement something like this, they already have "science" points. Adding "engineering" points would be a welcome addition. I think they're already planning on giving kerbals flight experience points to improve them as they go, so by adding engineering, you could have all the aspects of the game covered.

[sharpspoonful]

Yes, but the community fleshing out details means interest in a good idea. It can bring attention to a subject of common acceptance and show SQUAD that this is a feature that is wanted. And yes, the final decision is up to SQUAD, but discussing it and fleshing it out can help them out in developing a system that would work. Not hating, just counterpointing is all.

[pizzaoverhead]

Meh. It's a single player game, if someone wants to farm, more power to 'em. People are going to find ways to game the game.

If people are farming, that means you've balanced your game to give the biggest reward to doing something boring and repetitive. Games that are balanced in a well-rounded manner are more fun and creative as they don't lock the player in to a specific strategy.

[DChurchill]

People will farm anyway. I don't know any MMO that doesn't have someone farming some aspect of it. For me, I'm not going to farm something even if it's somehow the most efficient way to gather something, because it isn't fun. Like gathering crafting mats in Skyrim, even. I'm just not going to spend two hours doing nothing but picking flowers and picking wings off butterflies, because I'd probably end up cutting my wrists from boredom. But I don't care if you want to. That's the figurative you, not you personally.

Trying to make a system farm-proof usually results in a watered-down thing that nobody really likes. "Well, this thing used to be really cool but people were exploiting "X" so they neutered the whole thing." Seen it in a ton of MMOs. That's fine in an MMO, but why bother in a single-player game? It's like the whole MechJeb debate.

Why on earth would you play a single-player game in a manner that's boring and repetitive, just to be more efficient? Then it's a job. But, like I said, if you want to do that, go crazy. Again not pointed at you but the figurative "you".

Anyway, that's a whole other discussion. Back to topic.

[boomerdog2000]

Alright so we've determined we probably can't stop people from farming EEP, but we can think about ways to discourage that.

[astropapi1]

Alright so we've determined we probably can't stop people from farming EEP, but we can think about ways to discourage that.

Upping launch cost for vessels that don't take off, maybe?

Edited October 15, 2013 by astropapi1

[boomerdog2000]

Then you might have to pay too much for engine tests.

Maybe you can only get a certain number of EEP from engine tests.

Something like Block A can be unlocked using any method, including on pad engine tests.

Block B can only be unlocked from returning the craft from orbit and more advanced methods (no on pad engine tests)

Block C can only be unlocked from landing on another planet/ moon or more advanced methods (no engine tests or just from flying in Kerbin's SOI)

Similar to the diminishing returns from the current science design.

[NeilC]

I'd like to keep the anti-farming discussion from derailing this thread.

I think farming prevention will come for free from the economics of the game. If engines are so cheap to build and launch that you can afford to farm, I'd say the problem lies with the economic system and not the proposed EEP system.

Now, if the EEP system gave cost and performance bonuses that were so huge that farming became worthwhile, that would be EEP's balancing problem. But the solution is pretty simple in my mind: keep the EEP bonuses relatively small and keep the cost curves long, so the primary way that you interact with the EEP system is "Oh, isn't that bonus a nice little surprise!" rather than "Wow, Block D is a beast! I should min/max the crap out of this ASAP!"

Can we label the farming problem as "to be resolved by detailed balancing once the system is implemented"? Can we please stop talking about it unless someone has a big new anti-farming idea that doesn't involve some combination of

-reducing or delaying EEP bonuses

-increasing launch costs

-distinguishing between orbit/sub-orbit/pad tests

These are all details that will come later. We've brought them up as potential problems. Well done, all.

[Zaeo]

Yeah, I see what you mean on the in space change shape part. I was thinking more along the lines of orbital construction of sorts. It would be more appropriate for when resources are added & mining etc, THEN i could see the reconfiguration as a feasible addition. Consumes metal, etc etc.

If/when squad adds that resource system, metal and other materials could be used to weld patches to change an engine bell shape.

I'd love to see the Manufacturing facility that will use collected materials/brought back materials to create parts to use in career mode. You could then mass produce commonly used parts, and launch many missions with a similar rocket design.

I'll be practicing minimalism in the near future, of course, Aerodynamic nosecones will be added for aesthetic purposes.

We shall see how this is regarded. Good luck!

[NeilC]

I've updated the OP to reflect the current state of this discussion.

Let's keep fleshing out this slider idea! Does anyone want to make a nice GUI mockup of the slider option, and possibly the Block Upgrade option to replace my crappy ASCII version?

[astropapi1]

Now that 0,22 is released

You almost gave me a heart attack.

[NeilC]

Check the time. It's the 16th where I live. It could happen at any minute.