A Quick Take on the Currency System

[Tex]

I know people have been discussing the Currency system on and off for a while now, so I'd like to cash in now while the career mode is still subject to a lot of change.

My idea is to trade science points for currency! This would better represent real world publishing of scientific data for acclaim and possibly (possibly) some research grants. I believe that each science point could net you anywhere from 1000 to 10000 currency units (depending on the already-established part costs, I'm not picky as to the final cost) so you could buy parts with a budget that will only put out as much as you can make it.

I also believe that it would be cool to trade extra cash back into science points, as a way of "increasing R&D's budget" so you can generate even more cash. Starting a new career mode game would obviously give you a fairly respectable in-game budget that would allow you to set up basic rockets with the parts available from your current tech tree.

The only exception being, of course, sandbox mode, with no tech tree and no budget whatsoever. Well, that's my idea anyway. Any other thoughts?

[Sirrobert]

I like it.

Would tie nicely into expending the options to get science (which would add the problem of getting to much science to fast).

It would need to be ballanced carefully though, but that's what we are here for

PS: In a way it's already how the science system works. You bring back data, and with that data you get a budget to research new parts (instead of using the data of 'the sample is glowing' to directly research rover wheels)

[Crush]

I think this is a bad idea influenced by the current tunnel-vision inflicted by currently seeing the tech tree as the one and only component of career mode.

1. It's implausible. Sure, publishing scientific findings could be monetized theoretically, but knowledge doesn't work like that. Knowledge can't be sold. When you write a book about your scientific findings and sell it, you don't forget what you learned. So "selling" scientific findings for cash doesn't make sense.

2. It is dangerous from the gameplay perspective, because it allows users to maneuver themself into a dead end. What happens when a user sells all their science points and hasn't got the technology to collect more science? (That dead-end problem plagues many ideas about money which were written here in the past)

I am quite curious how the developers will answer the question what to do with the money values they attached to all parts. But tying it to the science system is not necessarily a good idea.

[Guest]

tying it to the science system is not necessarily a good idea.

This. Science accumulation is already being scaled down and it is important to remember that, in the Kerbol system at least, Science is a finite resource. This is not at all a good thing for continuing career mode play.

[Tex]

1. It's implausible. Sure, publishing scientific findings could be monetized theoretically, but knowledge doesn't work like that. Knowledge can't be sold. When you write a book about your scientific findings and sell it, you don't forget what you learned. So "selling" scientific findings for cash doesn't make sense.

2. It is dangerous from the gameplay perspective, because it allows users to maneuver themself into a dead end. What happens when a user sells all their science points and hasn't got the technology to collect more science? (That dead-end problem plagues many ideas about money which were written here in the past)

My rebuttal:

1. I never stated that the knowledge itself is monetized, but would merely result in a grant for notable achievements, like a prize for a science competition. I'm sure you're aware of the N-Prize.

2. I believe that the value of the experience gained through not only discovering exactly what methods of spending would steer you into a financial pitfall, but learning what methods would keep you in the green would benefit players not just game-wise, but reality-wise too. I believe that this would increase financial literacy, and maybe (just maybe) one day save a player from a real-world debt scenario. Maybe.

I apologize for the confusion, I sometimes struggle with expressing the picture in my head (as my Creative Writing teacher has explained several times ), but this, I hope, can further define my idea.

Thanks for the criticism, though! Nobody would get anywhere without it!

[boomerdog2000]

2. I believe that the value of the experience gained through not only discovering exactly what methods of spending would steer you into a financial pitfall, but learning what methods would keep you in the green would benefit players not just game-wise, but reality-wise too. I believe that this would increase financial literacy, and maybe (just maybe) one day save a player from a real-world debt scenario. Maybe.

I'm not here to learn about real life I'm here to guide little green men to other planets!

In all seriousness though the jump from Kerbin SOI to interplanetary missions can be quite a large and difficult one, especially for new players. Running out of money just as you are on the verge of figuring it out could crush and annoy them.

Also it doesn't seem to fit with the theme really. Science has its area and economics has its own. Even with enough science money to get to other planets you're still enforcing a hard cap on the size and duration of their space programs. Once their solar system is out of science they lose no matter what. That shouldn't be how the game works.