Do you think rocket construction will ever "take time"?

[regex]

In any kind of management game though, time is a big factor and the way rockets make their way to the pad should reflect that.

I completely disagree. Managing resources sounds challenging, managing time, in a game like KSP, sounds like tedium. I should be doing things whenever I sit down to play; if I miss a launch window it should be because I was doing something else, not because I didn't order some parts, or finish my design, on time.

Thanfully KSP is easily moddable so you can have your tedium and I never have to touch it.

[HeadHunter67]

Tthe Kerbals have to wait, just like we do irl. It's simply a matter of realism, but without forcing it upon the player.

We're talking about little green men making rockets from parts they found on the side of the road. Let's leave "realism" out of this.

[EdCase]

We're talking about little green men making rockets from parts they found on the side of the road. Let's leave "realism" out of this.

I rarely post in any forum, but this is exactly how I feel. I don't want Orbiter or BARIS I want KSP. "Realism" can be found elsewhere if I wish it.

[Ekku Zakku]

We're talking about little green men making rockets from parts they found on the side of the road. Let's leave "realism" out of this.

Talk to several KSP players, and quite a few will tell you how that's not their vision of KSP at all XD you're doing orbits and phase angles and ROCKET SCIENCE, let's leave realism in this. It's still a game, it's not hardcore realism, and that's what makes it fun. But for those who can't invest the time into games like Orbiter in order to get their realism fix (which is so much more restricting in relation to KSP, simply because of gameplay mechanics), more features in KSP that add to realism lets the experienced player play harder, while hardly affecting the rookie.

Except that it DOES force the player to deal with the mechanic, even if not directly, as you have outlined in your post.

So, for most people it wouldn't add anything aside from a forced timewarp session, "realism" isn't really a factor and I don't think this game should have "realism" on a higher priority than "fun"..and being forced to deal with rocket building using in game time, etc...isn't sounding FUN.

Seriously, how would it detract from the game's fun? It doesn't just add realism, there's more depth added to the game (many players want more things to do already), things to plan for if you so desire, and an easier way to multitask for those who want to run a more realistic space program. Time passing (or not passing) holds many negatives for us, sure, that part of reality sucks a whole lot. However, we're the player, and we don't have to wait for the Kerbals to build their rockets, and instead we can go straight until it's ready, or do something else (which is the key aspect for me) while waiting for it. It's like playing Angry Birds while riding the bus somewhere, you don't want to ride the bus and then play later, that's too linear and isn't a good use of time.

Building a craft for one mission, sending it on its way, and time warping to the destination with no missions being run in the meantime is quite boring to me, and often time KSP gets boring as a result of that. There's nothing preventing that with the feature we're talking about, due to the ability to warp directly to the launch, so this will not affect the players who want to play this way (aside from needing to know if their desired launch window will pass while the rocket is being built). The fact that I have to time warp to my launch windows 90% of the time already makes that a moot point though; if you want to go to Duna right now, you will warp until the phase angles are correct.

If you want to run a proper space program, and take on some of the responsibilities of one (like planning your launch windows), or actually playing the game on several different levels at once, this feature would make the game realistic enough to want to do so. If you get to the "end" of the career mode and notice that it takes you 50 in-game years, on your next go-around you might want to try to get that lower, perhaps down to 25 years by multitasking with your launches. There are many positive incentives to this feature in my mind.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Ekku Zakku

[Merinsan]

I hope not.

Given that about 80% of my launches involve something falling off/discovering I messed up staging/finding I forgot something important (fuel lines) this would become very frustrating.

[EdCase]

@EKKU

It would seem to me that you desire a management sim. The Devs appear to have a plan to give you plenty to do....Science, career,resources...not even mentioning a whole solar system to do it in. What they don't supply modders will/have.

However what you're proposing is simply an unnecessary layer of complex "busy work". Isn't being the rocket scientist enough ? You appear to want to be the administrator, accountant and contractor also.

It would not provide "realism" as Jeb would still be strapped to an SRB shooting for the Mun, he would simply have to twiddle his fingers (do Kerbals have fingers ? anyways....) wating for time to pass to do it again. Sounds as mind numbingly boring as grinding an MMO...

Just my 2 cents.

Edited November 12, 2013 by EdCase
can't spell Ekku it seems

[HeadHunter67]

Talk to several KSP players, and quite a few will tell you how that's not their vision of KSP at all XD you're doing orbits and phase angles and ROCKET SCIENCE, let's leave realism in this.

I've got a couple of wonderful stand-alone mods I'd like to recommend for such people:

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

http://buzzaldrin.com/community/buzz-aldrins-space-program-manager/

Seriously, how would it detract from the game's fun?

I've already explained, several times and at length, how it would detract from the fun, and run contradictory to the fast-and-loose style of this game. I don't object to people desiring this for themselves, but now it sounds like you're telling other people how they should be playing the game. That's never cool. I'll say again that you already have the means to simulate this obstacle, if that's the sort of thing you consider "fun".

But if you're seriously advocating "realism" in this game, with the little green men and the 6-hour days and the junkyard wars and the planets denser than iridium, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[CumpyLustard]

I hope not.

Given that about 80% of my launches involve something falling off/discovering I messed up staging/finding I forgot something important (fuel lines) this would become very frustrating.

I agree with this, I already can take a pretty decent amount of time building a ship, and more often than not I mess something up or forget something. Having to wait longer wouldn't be that much better, in my opinion.

[Ekku Zakku]

I've got a couple of wonderful stand-alone mods I'd like to recommend for such people:

Stop rubbing it in, I even said that those game lack the fun gameplay elements of KSP! I could never enjoy them nearly as much =3

I've already explained, several times and at length, how it would detract from the fun, and run contradictory to the fast-and-loose style of this game. I don't object to people desiring this for themselves, but now it sounds like you're telling other people how they should be playing the game. That's never cool. I'll say again that you already have the means to simulate this obstacle, if that's the sort of thing you consider "fun".

But if you're seriously advocating "realism" in this game, with the little green men and the 6-hour days and the junkyard wars and the planets denser than iridium, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I've read your reasons, but I only see them as concerns and not reasons as to why it's negative. We need discussion on this in order to figure out how best to implement it, after all. Implemented correctly, most of your reasons are easily passed over or go unnoticed (or even just turn the darn thing off! I haven't been trying to force this feature or anything, simply stating how any user can get by with it on, if it happened to not be an option), and I believe it will add much more to the game, as I've been trying so hard to show. I've also explained my reasons several times to even more length, and expanded on them more each time you've called me out on them.

"Fast and loose" is one of the ways for somebody to play the game, but not the only one. Never have I even attempted to say how the game should be played, I just mingle with the hardcore crowd and am a member of it myself, and so I can see what quite a few people want from that side of the game. There will always be the hobbyist/amateur side, and the hardcore side. Even then, with so many mods that add realistic rocket parts, physics, resource management, and a billion other things, it's hard to argue that people don't ever look for more realism or things to do. That's the beauty of KSP, a player can enjoy their dab of realism here, or smidge of crazy unrealistic parts there. I once played with Mechjeb, and I enjoyed it greatly, but after a while I didn't see a need for it so I dropped it. There will be those who see this feature as the best thing since sliced bread, and those who could care less, but it's incredibly difficult for me, even after so much discussion and taking in all of your opinions, to see it as a terrible feature. I even bet that those against it would enjoy playing with it at least once, before deciding whether to turn it off or leave it on to play how they enjoy the game the most. It needs lots of balance, it needs ease of use, and needs to not hinder the player aside from being a gameplay mechanic. Those are all things I'm going to attempt to accomplish, and hopefully I'd even be able to win over some of you skeptics XD

For those who blow up rockets more than every other launch, it would definitely be a hindrance and I'd like to try and work on that aspect as well (I blow more rockets up than I make into orbit too!), but at the same time, that would be more motivation to make your rockets better the first time, right? It's the same problem with currency being added to the game, and it's no question that that's coming, so I'm sure there will be ways to solve the problem. Perhaps the Kerbals really enjoy fireworks (or have amazing insurance), so you get 80% of your money reimbursed for explosive launches. At the same time, your engineers have lots of spare parts from making that last one, and being motivated to work better, will pump out another rocket in no time at all. Don't be so Negative Nancy about it and instead tell us your ideas to actually make it a decent feature

Finally, a miniature solar system to explore with realistic physics and rocket building/science is the biggest feature of the game; I'm not advocating for a simulator, simply more things on top of the already quite realistic game that would mimic reality and not detract from immersion (I know I'm not the only one, even out of the ones here against this feature, that has noticed how strange it is that the Kerbals pump out rockets like the VAB is a broken fire hydrant). I don't want a space program management game, just more features. We're already amateur rocket scientists, rookie pilots, and spotty engineers thanks to this game, why can't we be inexperienced managers as well? It's not a huge deal, it's not turning the game into a management game, just giving some challenges for the player to overcome (not even that, just the option for a challenge, to run several missions at once). Once you master everything in the game, you'd want more challenges, right? This might not be the one for you, but gosh darnit, let those of us who want it have it XD this discussion has been getting quite heated, and I don't want that, it's stressful. Just try and see our side of it, I know you want more things from the game too, so you know how we feel already. That's all I really have to say~

[Holo]

We're talking about little green men making rockets from parts they found on the side of the road. Let's leave "realism" out of this.

Good point. Let's also remove orbits from this game, because we don't want realism, right?

[Ekku Zakku]

Good point. Let's also remove orbits from this game, because we don't want realism, right?

Awwww, you don't have to say it that way XD I said less heated discussion! Let's be nice, we're a great community, let's uphold that =3

Kinda on topic, if I had spent half the time I spent on this thread today working on the mod, I would have been that much closer to getting it done. All this arguing is hindering progress!

[Deadweasel]

This is where the whole idea of "balance" comes into play (literally in this case).

I like that it's being built up as a mod already, though I'm not personally inclined to use it. There's a point at which there's enough realism to be interesting, engaging and challenging, but there's also just that right amount of fantasy (what I call "BS elements" in my writing) to make up for the portions that maybe aren't quite so realistic.

In this case, I'm quite happy to do the job that takes hundreds and hundreds of people to do in real life, so I can get down to the part that *I* find most fun about the game: launching, exploding, launching again, exploding a little less, launching one more time, and getting a cool design up into orbit and beyond. It's the act of creating and getting to see it in action that's most fun for me, not the minutia of actually RUNNING a space program.

Basically I'm more than happy to ignore the fact that time is paused while I'm building, and that launches happen as quickly as the scene will load. That lets me get on to the next part I built it for: BLOWING IT U- *cough* err, flying with style. >_>

Having to worry about how this next launch will influence another flight in progress is (again, to me) another one of those elements that aren't really manageable prior to the launch.

All of that redundant tripe said, here's a suggestion that could help a concept like this work:

In VAB or SPH view, find a way to do two things, and this will become a LOT more approachable to a lot more people:

• Show a picture-in-picture popup of the Map view (exposed or hidden with a shortcut key) that behaves as the map normally does so we can see what's where without leaving the assembly process
  
• Provide a means, perhaps similar to maneuver nodes, to show where things will be by the time this craft you're building is able to launch from right now.
  

Nobody will want to learn their massive design just cost them potentially dozens of hours of time AFTER they hit the launch button, and now they might have lost a critical intercept elsewhere that they can't get back. Set things up so there's at least some indication of what the launch will cost BEFORE the launch, and you'll avoid a recipe for ragequits (and vehement mod removal).

EDIT:

Also, it might be interesting to see if map view in the VAB/SPH would behave more reliably due to the fact that the engine isn't currently engaged with simulating physics for *anything* in the world. Could even make it a preferable means to viewing the map for some people!

Edited November 12, 2013 by Deadweasel

[Ekku Zakku]

Thanks a lot for adding peaceful and helpful discussion Deadweasel!

I just want to have a ship that's being built put in a list, and it will be ready to launch past it's "ready: construction finished" date. In the meantime, the player can either say "put me on the launchpad and warp me until it's ready" (it will stop warping at desired times, like the Alarm Clock mod does), or the player can jump in the tracking station and control some other missions.

I can probably add some sort of display as to where things will be when the ship will be ready, either a map or text display (the latter being more likely). When a ship is built and ready, the mod will ask if the user wants to launch it, and if so, it will put it on the pad (quite a trivial task, coding-wise =3). As a balanced mod with no options for difficulty like short or long build times, ideally the rockets won't take long enough to build that they'll greatly affect transfer windows, but of course the ship might need a bit more dV to make the transfer burn. That would probably be the "Normal" option if I added a selection of times.

Anyways, I really need to go to bed, so I'll continue discussion tomorrow. I love this thread so much XD

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I wholeheartedly support this idea (with the caveat that it should still be possible to pause the game and look around).

It might be helpful to look at the issue and consider the immersiveness of the game, as opposed to the realism.

The reason I bought KSP is that it is immersive, even in a decidedly incomplete stage, I can imagine myself in the (entirely undeserved) role of KASA Director; it gets to the point where I start making up fanfiction (only in my head, for now) about what happens in the game.

In any fictional piece of art - film, book, game, etc. a level of suspension of disbelief is required to be immersed in the story, rather than having attention drawn to the medium. In some cases, this is easier than others. For example, I have no problem with the idea that when Kerbol and its system formed, there were bits of a neutron star floating around in that particular part of space, giving the celestial bodies an exceptionally high mass for their size. However, I have a big problem with things that force me to think "that doesn't make sense, why would this happen"?

Some things, like low fps, or slow transitions / loading screens are obviously bad from everyone's point of view, but in other cases (like time passing in the game), it's less universal.

The best example (for me), is when I click the launch button on a new rocket, and it immediately appears on the pad - it jerks me out of the story, replacing it with the realisation that it's just lines of code running through a CPU.

What I want to see (and accept that this will be a while, if ever) are crews of Kerbals moving around the VAB, actually constructing the rocket, before it moves slowly along the tracks to the pad. That's too difficult to do right now, but at least putting in some sort of duration for the events to happen seems like a good idea which could be expanded if the devs decide it's worth while.

I fully accept that some people would hate this, and I wouldn't want to force it on them, but for me (and probably others) instantaneous construction and teleportation to the pad just throws me out of the KSP "story", the immersion in this fictional world is damaged, if not destroyed.

So in summary, this is a "Yes!" to the idea, but perhaps only in a career "hard mode".

Edited November 12, 2013 by S4qFBxkFFg
typos

[Whatshtisthis]

Well, rocket construction taking time is kind of in the game already. Don't you spend quite a while building your rockets? Doesn't that count as "construction time"?

[rosenkranz]

I know on some level this sounds like a bad idea. However, unlocking most of the tree and landing on the mun by year 1 day 4 is kinda ridiculous. Once you start exploring the mun you'll have the rest of the tree unlocked by the end of year 1 day 10 or sooner.

The real question is how to implement some sort of delay. RL vehicle builds take months. Whackjob's creations might take years (not weeks)

Plus you may have missions in progress. It seems to me some sort of queue would be needed.

So first, for sandbox there shouldn't be a delay. If you want a delay in sandbox build up the craft in the VAB, then switch to your time machine and time warp to when you think it'd be done and then launch.

For carreer perhaps difficultly levels could control this. Easy is no delay, Normal is a Kerbal scaled delay and Hard a RL scaled delay.

Have a Simluate Launch button for flight testing (no science, no cost, no delay)

Have a Assemble and Launch button for real flights that installs the build into a free slot.

The VAB/SPH could have 3 slots each for assembly (upgradeable as you work up the tech tree) so at the start you could have six missions building. Slot progress should be visible from the Tracking station, Spacecenter and from inside the VAB/SPH.

Time warp needs to be available from the Tracking station and the Spacecenter if you have nothing else going on (i.e. no other flights in progress that want your attention).

Once a build slot is complete a Launch button should appear. A cool cinematic of the craft being rolled out of the VAB to the pad or taxiing to the runway from the SPH would be cool (skippable of course). Then you're on the launch pad as normal.

Each craft that has been successfully built should have a counter associated with it. Future builds should take shorter delays up to a point based on the number of prior builds. Changes to a design could decrease that counter by one each time the craft is re-saved.

Vehicles launched by the SPH should probably be handled different as they aren't necessarily dismantled after recovery and should be reusable with only a short delay for fueling and maintenance governed by the size and complexity of the craft.

This likely isn't as complicated as it sounds and should be relatively transparent to the user but it would make for an interesting component.

One wonders if a mod could be made to do this?

oooooooooooohhhhhhh, a thought just occurred. Who does Kerbal Alarm Clock? Maybe an alarm could be generated? Launch the vehicle to the pad and while it's in the 'ready to launch' state KAC could make a quick analysis of the vehicle and suggest an alarm time for when it would be ready to launch.

It'd be strictly on thee honor system but it would be consistent in it's estimates and could add the element that some players are looking for...

[regex]

but perhaps only in a career "hard mode".

For carreer perhaps difficultly levels could control this. Easy is no delay, Normal is a Kerbal scaled delay and Hard a RL scaled delay.

Managing time under this system isn't "difficult", it's tedious. You can either take it to the next level and plan your year out with spreadsheets and such, or you can wait, launch to parking orbit, and wait again. It's literally a no-brainer, it just involves a lot of time-warping and missing launch windows and basically not playing the game. You could also build your rockets under another save so you can figure out how long they take to build and never miss a launch date.

How about we have a "tedium" level slider for this? "Difficulty" isn't really an appropriate descriptor.

[boomerdog2000]

Rocket construction taking time would make more sense if you had other things to do during that time. Any time based components of a game require you to have other activities for you to do during said time. At the moment what we do is launch and design rockets. So having to have time in-between launching and designing said rockets leaves you with nothing to do, which defeats the purpose of the game.

[Ekku Zakku]

Rocket construction taking time would make more sense if you had other things to do during that time. Any time based components of a game require you to have other activities for you to do during said time. At the moment what we do is launch and design rockets. So having to have time in-between launching and designing said rockets leaves you with nothing to do, which defeats the purpose of the game.

That's only for those who do a linear progression of missions, rather than multitasking several missions at once (which I really want to do, but since I only come up with big, difficult missions rather than small, easy, progressive missions like a real space program would, I never really get the chance. Career mode missions would give me that). This feature is really only for those who want more realism in their career modes, and while regex calls it tedium, so is launching progressively larger missions and unlocking better parts. What else is there to expect from career mode? You start off small, and work your way up, even if you're capable of making 1-launch grand tour ships or SSTOs to Laythe. The career is a space program game, not just a rocket building and flying game like the sandbox =3 this is just something else that will add to the career, but I can certainly see the desire to not want it. Just a matter of player choice, like the career mode will likely be to a lot of players, due to the restrictions.

[Danish_Savage]

I would launch once every several weeks.

Once very several years you mean.

[SkyRender]

I think the current system would need a considerable overhaul to make "time to build rockets" practical. As Ekku Zakku discovered, you run into real problems when time acceleration is involved. For it to work, you would have to change Launch to Construct, and add more advanced controls to the space center interface (the ability to time accelerate in the tracking station, at the very least; why don't we have that already, incidentally?). A "skip to completed rocket" button would help, but it would be a bandage at best since it would just be giving the player a choice between letting the game screw up their missions in progress or not.

[Camelotking524]

I think the current system would need a considerable overhaul to make "time to build rockets" practical. As Ekku Zakku discovered, you run into real problems when time acceleration is involved. For it to work, you would have to change Launch to Construct, and add more advanced controls to the space center interface (the ability to time accelerate in the tracking station, at the very least; why don't we have that already, incidentally?). A "skip to completed rocket" button would help, but it would be a bandage at best since it would just be giving the player a choice between letting the game screw up their missions in progress or not.

Thats why I recommend instead of having to wait on the rockets to be built, one has to wait on the parts to arrive from the manufacturer. Add in a budget system, this will add a more "space program" feel to the game. Like you put in an order for 5 mainsails for your mission to Duna, but they will not arrive till 2 weeks after the window. So instead of using those 5 mainsails, you use what you already have in inventory to complete your mission. Or because of a budget cut back because of the failure of your mun mission, you can't even afford to order those newly researched Mainsails and are once again forced to use cheaper parts or what you already have at hand.

Also, weren't we always talking about Career mode? Sandbox shouldn't have any restrictions.

[jfjohnny5]

So I just want to say a huge preemptive "Thanks!" to Ekku Zakku for undertaking the task of turning this idea into a mod. I certainly didn't expect this thread to be quite as impassioned as it's become, but it is GREAT to see all the discussion. I think the (hopefully) eventual mod will help refine and test a lot of the ideas that are coming up. The more I read about Ekku's vision for it, the more excited I get to try it! (and I'll certainly help test if you need it!)

Edited November 12, 2013 by jfjohnny5

[WafflesToo]

Just my two cents, I'm for it so long as it's optional.

This isn't something that will impact most gameplay, BUT I can see two scenarios where it would.

#1 when something unexpected comes up (the aforementioned "rescue mission") and

#2 when you start getting orbital infrastructure in place and timing between missions starts to become important.

Heck, I could see leaving a spaceplane sitting on the runway just in case could become a sound strategy.

[rosenkranz]

Managing time under this system isn't "difficult", it's tedious. You can either take it to the next level and plan your year out with spreadsheets and such, or you can wait, launch to parking orbit, and wait again. It's literally a no-brainer, it just involves a lot of time-warping and missing launch windows and basically not playing the game. You could also build your rockets under another save so you can figure out how long they take to build and never miss a launch date.

How about we have a "tedium" level slider for this? "Difficulty" isn't really an appropriate descriptor.

Perhaps for your style of game play but not everyone's. This is why a mod would be good. A mod will either prove your point or not. Many will try it. Those that don't like it will uninstall it and move on. Those that do will continue. In either case, one hopes for feedback from all for further development and better implementation. Some that tried it before might try later iterations to see it new builds work better. Those that don't like it.... such is circle of life.

Once very several years you mean.

Word!

So I just want to say a huge preemptive "Thanks!" to Ekku Zakku for undertaking the task of turning this idea into a mod. I certainly didn't expect this thread to be quite as impassioned as it's become, but it is GREAT to see all the discussion. I think the (hopefully) eventual mod will help refine and test a lot of the ideas that are coming up. The more I read about Ekku's vision for it, the more excited I get to try it! (and I'll certainly help test if you need it!)

Yes, I wish I had read more of the thread before chipping in my two krones as a lot of that was already suggested in one form or another. Is there a dev thread yet Ekku?

Just my two cents, I'm for it so long as it's optional.

This isn't something that will impact most gameplay, BUT I can see two scenarios where it would.

#1 when something unexpected comes up (the aforementioned "rescue mission") and

#2 when you start getting orbital infrastructure in place and timing between missions starts to become important.

Heck, I could see leaving a spaceplane sitting on the runway just in case could become a sound strategy.

Yes, I could see a storage hangar for pre-built aircraft/spaceplanes and sub-assemblies to speed up builds. Having pre-built orbital rescue craft waiting in the wings would be a very good idea.