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

[Deadweasel]

Why wait until the ship is ready then? Why not go out and actually manage time like a proper space program would and launch multiple missions? That's what I'm going to gain the most from the mod, since I don't like "linear launching", or doing each mission after you finish the last one, ad infinitum. Currently I don't have motivation to run multiple missions at once, but having to wait to launch will make me want to multitask so I won't have to (even though warping until ready will take essentially no time at all, just adding that extra roleplay element helps).

I think maybe that's the aspect that a lot of detractors are missing, right there. The career mode offers a greater opportunity for roleplay/immersion by introducing a kind of linear progression to the game through the challenge of designing working ships, using only the parts you have unlocked so far.

Sure, I can see the fans of the sandbox mode wanting to keep this idea far away from it, but it does make a great deal of sense for CAREER mode, the fans of which are not only okay with "artificial limitations"; they have been actively clamoring for it, in the name of increasing the challenge of the game.

[Franklin]

Sure, if multi-missioning is an option. But right now every little maneuver is completely hands-on. If at some point in the future we have the option to run the game like a business sim, and let Jeb et al run their own missions on our orders, then waiting for a launch to commence makes more sense. But right now we have no pre-planned, self-executing missioning, and many (I'd even say most) players don't like to play that way. They like to fly the rockets, not manage the business, and they don't want to have to wait to fly the cool rocket they just built, only to find out they didn't balance the struts and it all fell apart, only to go back to the drawing board and they have to wait even longer for the ground crew to clear the pad of the debris. That's a business element they're not interested in.

So while I'm with you that I'd like to see the career mode fleshed out with more other-than-rocket-flying elements, we need to balance fun with realism, and business with simulation.

[Artophwar]

I see your point, and I love XCOM, but the difference is the game gives you missions and things to do during the waiting. The facilities and things you are waiting for may be necessary to succeed in your next mission, but they are not necessary to attempt the next mission. Waiting for rockets to be built would be waiting to even play the game, which I am not a fan of.

There could be other things to do in between construction. I will use XCOM again as an example. You basically hit the scan button till the next event happens. Why couldnt KSP be similar? You hit a button and the game time counts away at the KSC at a warp level of your choosing or you can just hit "Next Event". In that time it may come up with another mission for you to plan, or one of your kerbals could finish some training, or a previous mission is entering a new SOI, or that rocket you built is ready for launch.

They like to fly the rockets, not manage the business

The whole point of career mode is to run a space agency which will be like managing a business. If people just want to fly rockets they can do that in sandbox mode.

[regex]

Why wait until the ship is ready then? Why not go out and actually manage time like a proper space program would and launch multiple missions? That's what I'm going to gain the most from the mod, since I don't like "linear launching", or doing each mission after you finish the last one, ad infinitum. Currently I don't have motivation to run multiple missions at once, but having to wait to launch will make me want to multitask so I won't have to (even though warping until ready will take essentially no time at all, just adding that extra roleplay element helps).

See, here's the thing, some of us already manage multiple flights at a time and we don't want the stock game to get in the way of that or dictate how we do it, and we don't need motivation to do it beyond our own individual goals. I personally launch and manage multiple flights in order to maximize my early launch window usage, which this proposal throws out the window. It could also prevent interesting impromptu gameplay, such as sending a picnic ship during an available high energy transfer window in order to save a Kerbal running out of life support. Of course I should have planned that out instead of doing it in thw middle of the mission, right? Wrong, you just killed my fun with spreadsheets and alarm clocks.

I could possibly see this working with a parts delivery delay but even that would get pretty infuriating (and it kind of kills the creativity and whimsical nature of the game).

[boomerdog2000]

You basically hit the scan button till the next event happens. Why couldnt KSP be similar? You hit a button and the game time counts away at the KSC at a warp level of your choosing or you can just hit "Next Event". In that time it may come up with another mission for you to plan, or one of your kerbals could finish some training, or a previous mission is entering a new SOI, or that rocket you built is ready for launch.

True enough but,

1. The scanning was probably the slowest part of the game considering nothing was happening and you were just waiting.

2. The amount of time you were skipping was measured in days or weeks, at most a month if you were unlucky. All of this was time you were waiting to actually play the game. Which isn't very good gameplay.

3. Rocket construction takes months or more for the rocket to be finished which can all be for nothing since your rocket might be missing that one crucial strut.

[tetryds]

people complain about this idea like if building a rocket in KSP CARRER would take months

we are just talking about 2, max 3 days here

its not like you wont have time to rescue Jeb floating around the Mun with few supplies

and its not like you are going to lose lots of windows because of it

but you will have to plan ahead if you leave a ship ready to intercept a SOI and want to launch another ship on the meanwhile

this is just to add a bit of timelapse and realism to the game, right now its really weird

i mean, you launch 10 missions within a day, then skip some months in a row just for a intercept with Jool

that clearly doesnt seem right

[regex]

we are just talking about 2, max 3 days here

Is that so? That makes it pretty meaningless as far as adding difficulty and planning, not to mention adding "realism". There's no reason for it to be in the game in that case; just "roleplay" it out for yourself if it seems so wrong.

[Ekku Zakku]

Is that so? That makes it pretty meaningless as far as adding difficulty and planning, not to mention adding "realism". There's no reason for it to be in the game in that case; just "roleplay" it out for yourself if it seems so wrong.

It is a pretty big difference considering the Kerbol system is so small. Time passes at about a second per day at max time warp, and if the days it takes to build is too big, then warping through build time really would be waiting. A 10 to 20 day build max (say, for Whackjob's creations) would be long, but understandable. A 5 to 10 day build for huge asparagus staged rockets would be common, 2 to 3 day builds for medium-sized, and 1 to 2 days for small rockets or planes seems like what I'm leaning towards currently. It also helps with them being short, since 10 days or so is gonna be your launch window to Duna, if you start building too late it'd be possible to go for a cheaper approach and still make it there. This, I feel, also goes along with how Kerbals would really run a space program; fast, loose, and cheap! I can imagine Werner Von Kerman saying, "hey Bill, I forgot to tell you that your Duna launch window came up yesterday, might want to get on that!" and having all those silly builders in the VAB rushing to get a ship done in time. I'd imagine that they'd care less about safety than us, so they could get a rocket built in such a short time span.

[regex]

A 10 to 20 day build max (say, for Whackjob's creations) would be long, but understandable. A 5 to 10 day build for huge asparagus staged rockets would be common, 2 to 3 day builds for medium-sized, and 1 to 2 days for small rockets or planes seems like what I'm leaning towards currently.

That's nothing. Here I thought you guys were going for something that would actually require spreadsheets and droll planning but instead you're not really altering the game at all. I mean, you might miss a Moho window under these restrictions if you're stoned, but those come up every two months (or thereabouts). I can't see how you can claim this will add any difficulty, planning, or depth to the game, much less realism. It's like the "Diet Coke of Difficulty", why bother?

[Deadweasel]

That's nothing. Here I thought you guys were going for something that would actually require spreadsheets and droll planning but instead you're not really altering the game at all. I mean, you might miss a Moho window under these restrictions if you're stoned, but those come up every two months (or thereabouts). I can't see how you can claim this will add any difficulty, planning, or depth to the game, much less realism. It's like the "Diet Coke of Difficulty", why bother?

Well, going by that logic, KSP itself is the "Diet Coke of Rocket Design", since everything is so much easier relative to reality.

The depth that it adds is that it creates a new consideration for builds and launches. No, you might not run afoul of it very often, but then again it might just instill a conscious thread surrounding launch windows in general while building. (Remember, we're still talking about this in relation to Career Mode, so it kind of makes sense that timing would take a least one step closer to the front row in this regard).

Also -and forgive me if this has been called out or addressed already- but what if there were a small window showing the current estimated time to build in the VAB? That way you could see the delay effect your build will have before launching.

[regex]

The depth that it adds is that it creates a new consideration for builds and launches. No, you might not run afoul of it very often, but then again it might just instill a conscious thread surrounding launch windows in general while building. (Remember, we're still talking about this in relation to Career Mode, so it kind of makes sense that timing would take a least one step closer to the front row in this regard).

Eh... Maybe it's just the way I play, but even if I were trying to hit every optimal launch window within the Kerbin year I would rarely, if ever, run afoul of this (aside from the day 0 Eve transfer, but that's not entirely optimal or desirable in career mode anyway). The only thing this would ever really affect is an urgent high-energy transfer to an outer planet or a Moho transfer. Maybe if I was trying to pack the year full of as many flights as I could in order to lag out my computer?

I don't believe this will be significant with the rest of career mode either. I feel confident that I could unlock enough of the tech tree under these conditions to feel good about making the first Duna transfer (day 59) and I play with life support and don't spam transmit. We're talking 1 or 2 days for small rockets which are your early tree bread and butter; that's some 20 flights you could make before building the Duna vehicle. If economics slows the game down then building time becomes even less significant. If I need to save up cash for the Duna vehicle and am not feeling like the day 59 transfer is doable, I'll have to wait until the day 291 window, giving me some 100 launches before I even have to think about building it.

In short, the time-frame Ekku Zakku lays out is just... it's not really worth caring about. It's not even "immersive".

[boomerdog2000]

I guess that's our point. Either construction will take exceptionally long and keep you from playing the game. Or it will be short enough to not mean anything. Construction taking time doesn't seem to add anything to me. No matter how you look at it.

[tetryds]

and i just had the idea that the time it takes to build a rocket inflicts directly on the ship costs

if you want a huge monstruosity ready for a duna transfer within 2 days you can have it

just pay your engineers enough money

if you want to go Mün whenever, just let them work without careing much about deadlines, for a lower cost

THIS would really impact the gameplay, because we all expect time to matter in aspecs of money, and you will have to balance how long it will take to make a ship and how well you can keep up on that timelapse, of course, being abble to make missions on that time

this would also require a rocket simulation (AKA timeless "fake" launch) to check if it wont explode on the launchpad

you would choose either to skip to the frame the ship is ready or be warned by Von Kerman that its ready at the launchpad

switch to it whenever you want and you good to go

seems pretty smooth to me

[regex]

because we all expect time to matter in aspecs of money

Speak for yourself. I expect money to rely on what I actively do in the game, not some silly timewarp mechanic.

this would also require a rocket simulation (AKA timeless "fake" launch) to check if it wont explode on the launchpad

Just keep a sandbox save around.

seems pretty smooth to me

It really depends on what the normal timeframe for rocket building is as opposed to what spending more would save. If you're talking normal as in what was earlier suggestsd on this page then there is almost never a reason to spend more to speed up the process.

[Ekku Zakku]

You guys were wanting it to not interfere with launch windows, waiting, and stuff like that in the first place lol. 1 or 2 days for simple unmanned rockets, the smallest possible manned rocket that'll make it into orbit, or ones that are suborbital is reasonable (you wouldn't want to wait more than a day for your first tier-0 flight in career mode, would you?), not one that you can take to the Mun, and taking more than a day to rendezvous with a craft that's running out of life support, or didn't pack chutes and is hurtling towards Kerbin with no hope of survival isn't likely in the first place anyways. That would still require planning. A player won't want to take a decade to get to the Mun or even Duna, but I feel like an inexperienced player would find that first Duna window kinda difficult to make with a restriction like this.

For the experienced players or those who want more of a challenge (like most everybody here), remember, I still do want to add a realistic time restriction as well. I should have mentioned those were what I felt were "balanced" values for the average player. Double the max time and raise up the minimum time some, and that would roughly give you realistic times. I also haven't even taken into account rockets that have been built repeatedly, or spaceplanes that are reused; to balance that, an initial build for your Duna rocket just might take 10 days, or 5 if it's tiny, but subsequent builds and revisions of it would take less time. It just gives the player more freedom with how they want to plan their space program.

[tetryds]

I also haven't even taken into account rockets that have been built repeatedly, or spaceplanes that are reused; to balance that, an initial build for your Duna rocket just might take 10 days, or 5 if it's tiny, but subsequent builds and revisions of it would take less time. It just gives the player more freedom with how they want to plan their space program.

good idea, that would be cool

about the transfer windows, i belive an inexperienced player trying to reach Duna would have full support of Von Kerman telling him whenever its feasible or not

even though it would be a better idea to start by the sandbox mode

the "no deadline" rocket building wouldnt make you go bankrupt on the early parts of the game, but if you good enough to make a station and leave it long enough to run out of resources you probably already learned the basics and will already know how to deal with rocket building timelapse

a tier-0 flight usually have very few parts, and would be assembled within a few hours

i also have the idea of that when you get more science points and grow on the game, the engineers get more experienced, and the rocket building time decreases based on the total science value you gathered

and i also belive that this will fit perfectly well when mining is added

you can't just bring a bunch of steel back home and instantly turn it into a car

[boomerdog2000]

You guys were wanting it to not interfere with launch windows, waiting, and stuff like that in the first place lol. 1 or 2 days for simple unmanned rockets, the smallest possible manned rocket that'll make it into orbit, or ones that are suborbital is reasonable

Yes and then you answered that with saying the time-frame will only be a few days, to which our argument is now that construction time is meaningless. You are adding waiting, for waiting's sake.

(you wouldn't want to wait more than a day for your first tier-0 flight in career mode, would you?)

Right, because there's nothing to do during that time. You would just be sitting there waiting. Timewarp or no, that is bad gameplay. Because it isn't gameplay, it's DMV Simulator 2013.

[Ekku Zakku]

I'm kinda limited right now by the max time warp (although now that I think about it, I believe I can change that... whether it's a good idea or not due to SOI changes is another thing). Construction time really isn't meaningless, it takes care of that weird insta-building of rockets that irks players like me, and will add an optional challenge (with additional waiting at max time warp, or doing way more planning depending on your playstyle) with more realistic build times. There is also still the restriction on being able to launch rescue ships immediately after realizing you need one.

Really, the only way for this to be balanced is to be able to cater it for the players, which I have discovered thanks to our discussion (and I'm still loving it, it's very much needed). In the end, realism is one of the key goals and we've had that discussion before. It does still add a time dynamic, just one that will be more noticeable within the Kerbin/Mun/Minmus system rather than the whole Kerbol system. As for that, having to do research and test flights through a career mode might be the extra limiting factor to make launch windows much more critical. The way to make the construction time meaningful is not just to add more waiting, it's incorporating it into the game as a whole. You wouldn't expect DMV Simulator 2013 to have no waiting times, would you? At the same time, you wouldn't expect a Space Program game to have no time elements either?

[Seret]

At the same time, you wouldn't expect a Space Program game to have no time elements either?

Not overly bothered either way TBH. KSP isn't a deep simulation, it's a fun little game about green cartoon guys riding rockets.

[regex]

I'm kinda limited right now by the max time warp (although now that I think about it, I believe I can change that...

NathanKell's Real Solar System changes timewarp parameters, check it out.

add an optional challenge (with additional waiting at max time warp

Waiting isn't challenging.

At the same time, you wouldn't expect a Space Program game to have no time elements either?

It already does have time elements, I just don't want to be bored to death by additional tedium.

[Ekku Zakku]

Waiting isn't challenging.

Ugh, that wasn't my point... The challenge is in having to manage longer build times, for those who want it, but it's at the cost of waiting longer or dealing with less accurate SOI changes on other craft due to a higher max time warp (although I might also be able to get around that as well). Even then, that's only for the players that use the "warp until ready" feature too liberally, which isn't the point of the feature in the first place, since it will cost a lot more Kerbal time.

[regex]

Ugh, that wasn't my point... The challenge is in having to manage longer build times, for those who want it, but it's at the cost of waiting longer or dealing with less accurate SOI changes on other craft due to a higher max time warp (although I might also be able to get around that as well). Even then, that's only for the players that use the "warp until ready" feature too liberally, which isn't the point of the feature in the first place, since it will cost a lot more Kerbal time.

Which really punctuates the problems with this idea as a feature in stock KSP**. It is very hard to balance it so that it doesn't become either a trivial exercise in timewarping or something that bores players out of the game. Under a shorter timeframe it is trivialized and becomes nothing more than an annoyance before launch, since you have to timewarp until the craft is ready or find something else to do. In fact, a shorter timeframe might even be beneficial to players like me since time is passing even faster during my short Kerbin flights while I amass enough unlocked science to be ready for a transfer window; in the end I have less time to timewarp until the transfer window. Under a longer timeframe the planning isn't exactly tough with a spreadsheet around (and who doesn't alt-tab to check the forums or plan a launch window) and you just end up timewarping even more often than the stock game. Alternatively, you just use KAC and ignore the entire process in the first place, spending most of your game time in timewarp waiting for stuff to happen. E: Imagine the clamor for KAC to be put in as a stock feature is this was made stock.

Either way, this is an exercise in role-playing that caters to a subset of players and doesn't belong in the stock game. It adds no difficulty or challenge and, if not balanced properly, becomes pure annoyance instead of immersion.

** Seeing as how the thread has been moved to the Suggestions and Development Discussion I am treating the feature as such.

Edited December 3, 2013 by regex

[tetryds]

regex, stop talking like if a rocket which would take 1 day to build would make you keep looking at the monitor for one entire day, that is not what is suggested, and you know it.

i completelly agree with Zakku, if you need a rescue ship you will have to deal with the time it takes to build the rocket

and it might be even worth to build a small craft with supplies first, then send the rescue ship due to the time it would take to build them

that is the aditional challenge and dificult added to the game

one thing is realism related to smaller planets and SOI, another is build a ship in no time

it could even contain a progress bar, and allow you to have 2, 3 or even more ships building at once, and even make these new slots cost for the player

so you would still play the game as you do, but would have to manage which rockets are under construction and when you need them

this way it would be smart to keep a rescue ship already built, and send it immediatelly when it is needed

that is the management, this is not a "launch your ship and crash at will" program, its kerbal space program, a space program MANAGEMENT simulator

Edited December 3, 2013 by tetryds

[regex]

regex, stop talking like if a rocket which would take 1 day to build would make you keep looking at the monitor for one entire day, that is not what is suggested, and you know it.

You literally haven't read, much less understood, anything I've written. Please do so before making requests of me to stop talking.

[sal_vager]

Lets keep thinks civil please guys