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

[FITorion]

I fully support this idea.

Game-time requiremens to build craft, and to complete research on a node (after 'purchasing' it).

Build time dependent on:

• number of parts
  
• number of times you already have built this design (new stuff is more tricky, after X launches the build-time settles at Y% of the original time cost)
  
• Vessel 'storage' So that the good planner can still prepare his 5 launches for this one window. Just make sure you built them in time (X hour game time penalty to move vessel from storage to launchpad & fill it up? Adds realism, and wouldn't conflict with planetary transfer windows)
  
• Should be part of difficulty level. Planning complicates stuff, easy-carreer and sandbox don't need this.

I'm having a hard time imagining a set of "features" I'd want less than this.

Edit to add:

The only part I agree with is "easy-carreer and sandbox don't need this."; as adding such a set of features (in a way where I could not avoid them) would destroy any enjoyment I could get out of the game. Make it optional... Make it a Mod... I don't care how you alter your game... But please don't suggest it be added to the base game.

Edited November 11, 2013 by FITorion

[jfjohnny5]

I'm now starting work on a mod for this, you guys just had to go and get me so excited about it XD I might get a basic plugin that gets info from the craft done tonight, and maybe something workable done by the end of the week. This will be my second plugin, but I'm still so far from familiar with the API that it's going to take me a good while I bet... Wish me luck!3

Good luck! Looking forward to trying it!

[RSwordsman]

Nifty idea, but I think that along with having monetary cost, this idea is totally unnecessary. Besides, part of the essence of Kerbal engineering is that it's all slapped together with no undue deliberation.

[HeadHunter67]

It's kind of off-putting to notice that on Day 1, 00:00:00, Kerbkind discovered rocketry, and by Day 3, they're landing on the Mun and Minmus, have a space station built up from 10 separately launched modules, and are starting to construct their first Duna craft.

Fair enough - but does it honestly matter? So they begin their new calendar on the day they get into space, and it's not long after that we see some other jury-rigged contraptions make it into orbit. But if the calendar date is that important to you, feel free to accelerate time in your game until it's at a point that you think should be sufficient - as it's only going to matter to you, and it's unlikely that even the like-minded will have the same exact idea of how long it "should" take.

Regardless, if the clarification of the OP's original statement is to be believed, it wouldn't add days or weeks - apparently he was only asking for VAB time to pass as real time. Hooray - so that first flight happens on Day 1, 00:02:00 and by day 3 they're still doing all that other stuff. Is that the important change we're advocating here, or are you hoping for something other than what the OP says he wanted?

The reality is that most people wouldnt even notice the change, or have to change their gameplay in any way at all.

Then what's the point? Why devote development time and resources to a "feature" that most people apparently wouldn't even notice, and that honestly wouldn't change gameplay in the least?

I won't dismiss the possibility of this mattering at some point in the future of the game - but right now it would change nothing and affect nothing. Users already have the means to pass time unnecessarily.

[jfjohnny5]

Regardless, if the clarification of the OP's original statement is to be believed, it wouldn't add days or weeks - apparently he was only asking for VAB time to pass as real time.

That's not what I was proposing. I saw some people misunderstood it that way at first. But I've since gone back and clarified. To be 100% clear, I'm not proposing that VAB time should pass as game time.

I know at least some people are getting it. One poster, Ekku Zakku, is already starting a mod for it. So here's to hoping all of this makes sense once the mod is done.

Edited November 11, 2013 by jfjohnny5

[HeadHunter67]

I've already addressed the flaws and shortcomings for every other possible interpretation of the intent. Either you're making people sit around and wait, or the wait can be easily bypassed or obviated. Neither contributes to enjoyment of gameplay. Neither encourages "planning" or time management in a game where time is a meaningless currency.

Why does a wait of two days, or 2 weeks, or whatever, matter if you can time warp through it? I'm still not seeing anyone really stating what this concept is intending to actually accomplish, or how it contributes to gameplay.

[Superfluous J]

Why does a wait of two days, or 2 weeks, or whatever, matter if you can time warp through it? I'm still not seeing anyone really stating what this concept is intending to actually accomplish, or how it contributes to gameplay.

As someone who is against this, I can see the desire for it. Here's one situation where it would affect gameplay:

You're returning from Minmus. You do all your burning to return and run out of fuel with your periapsis just under 70km. Not enough to aerobrake but in a few orbits, you're good. You do the first aerobrake and when it's done, you're on a collision course with Mun!

Right now, you can go to the VAB, custom make a ship on the fly, launch it, rendezvous with your ship, and either fuel it or at least save the Kerbal on board.

With this proposed system, your lack of planning just killed a Kerbal.

[Cheaterman]

Most valid if Jeb - or any orange suited. It's really funny how this turns into a flame war so quickly. The case you presented has a low probability in itself, and honestly I'd rather launch the rescue mission if I can. Other than that, I like the idea, and it's cool that a mod is planned since its drawbacks will prevent it from being added to the stock game (namely - low interest/challenge and high development time to make things deep and proper).

[Deadweasel]

There's a reason I never got into any of the Sim stuff. It gets tedious having to micro-manage every little cotton-picking detail, right down to worrying about the passage of time for events. I already have that concern where planetary encounters or rendezvousesess are concerned, and money/science/limited quantities for parts are already apparently on the way (going by what's already visible in the game elements); why the heck would I want to have to start dealing with this other new detail too?

Some things like hiring new recruits, deciding who gets to fly a mission (which will be cool if/when the kerbals' stats actually have an effect in some way other than their animations), and now spending science "points" to research new components, those are the kinds of things that are kind of an unconscious expectation (for me, at least).

The one question I have never asked myself is "why didn't all this other stuff happen while I was busy so long in the VAB?"

Also: how would you propose to check on a ship's progress? There's no Map view in VAB or SPH, meaning you'd have to save your work, back out and go to Tracking Station, then back out and into the VAB/SPH and re-load your work-in-progress.

Given the current state of loading between scenes, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say "AWW HELL NAW!"

EDIT: And before somebody phones in the obvious "just make a shortcut key like m work in the VAB too", I want to say that there's a reason there's a Tracking Station to go to in the first place, and that doing so could create all kinds of fallout with players who check the map while in the VAB, then accidentally Switch To another craft, only to discover their work in there is just... gone.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Deadweasel

[Ekku Zakku]

Also: how would you propose to check on a ship's progress? There's no Map view in VAB or SPH, meaning you'd have to save your work, back out and go to Tracking Station, then back out and into the VAB/SPH and re-load your work-in-progress.

Given the current state of loading between scenes, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say "AWW HELL NAW!"

We've already established that time passing in the VAB isn't the intent (and it really is a bad idea, as you've perfectly explained!), but having the building of rockets take time. For anybody who watches Scott Manley, he recently played Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager, or something like that, and it would take several turns to develop the technology and even build the rockets to launch. It worked pretty well, and it makes sense that a rocket will take time to build. They don't have to be built one at a time, they can be queued up and be built several at a time, or even kept on standby for emergency launches. When costs are implemented, having several rockets waiting to be built at once would really eat into your funds as well.

It would certainly need a lot of balancing to work right as well as be fair to the player, but I feel like it's really needed for the sake of being a space program game. What's the point in time if it's only waiting on transfer windows? Why not add more depth to it? It certainly wouldn't be hard for a beginner to follow, since they'd be too focused on one rocket at a time to even notice the build time. For the more experienced and/or managerial types, having multiple launches lined up while also dealing with other mission could be incredibly fun. It would be hard without something like the Alarm Clock mod, since time warping past a scheduled burn or missing a transfer window is obviously terrible. I would take great joy out of running multiple mission simultaneously, with believable passage of time, in a smooth manner. It's so very possible to make it fun and very easy to play the game with, given the right tools.

Anyways, I went and got my crappy test build made for the mod, as a proof of concept, and it works decently when your persistence craft don't have to deal with SOI changes XD that's just because I used a shortcut for testing purposes, but using time warp instead, alongside the other planned features, would remove that bug entirely. Check out the album below, or click here

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited November 11, 2013 by Ekku Zakku

[Torham234]

Why does a wait of two days, or 2 weeks, or whatever, matter if you can time warp through it? I'm still not seeing anyone really stating what this concept is intending to actually accomplish, or how it contributes to gameplay.

Except if you have to pay 15 000 Krones a month just for the maintenance of the KSC. Or if you have to make sure that all your kerbals in space have enough food and life support not to die in a week.

Its an good idea, but it would have to be implemented well. For example you have a probe on route to Duna with an encounter in 12 hours. The fact slips your mind and you are fooling around in LKO and you build and launch a Tanker to refuel your space station. Time skips by 3 days for construction and you realize your Duna probe has missed the insertion burn and is now hurling into deep space being completely useless ...

[Torham234]

Just had an idea mulling this through.

How about waiting for the components to be manufactured? We can all see that next to every part in VAB there is a counter telling you how many parts you have available. This means that in the full game, we will need to buy parts in order to build rockets. How about a delay between order and delivery of the parts? You want 5 orange tanks? Fine it will take 25 000 Krones and 5 weeks to deliver them. The actual assembly of the vehicle could be fairly fast. Especially if you think about how bendy all the constructions are, I do not think Kerbals put much effort into actually welding the parts together.

[SSSPutnik]

I hope not, at least hoping they keep sandbox mode.

[magnemoe]

As someone who is against this, I can see the desire for it. Here's one situation where it would affect gameplay:

You're returning from Minmus. You do all your burning to return and run out of fuel with your periapsis just under 70km. Not enough to aerobrake but in a few orbits, you're good. You do the first aerobrake and when it's done, you're on a collision course with Mun!

Right now, you can go to the VAB, custom make a ship on the fly, launch it, rendezvous with your ship, and either fuel it or at least save the Kerbal on board.

With this proposed system, your lack of planning just killed a Kerbal.

yes, however the rescue mission is the only one where this affect gameplay in an significant way.

You have other situation where its only boring like if you want to send an follow up mission to Jool with the first one.

[jwenting]

I'm not a fan of the idea. I LIKE that I can launch a space station, then immediately launch whatever is going to dock with it.

So much in this game is limited by the fact that you can only do one thing at a time. Can't we PRETEND that there are at least a few people in the space center who are NOT me, who are building these things while I'm getting Jeb into a Munar orbit?

Though being able to launch up through the falling debris of the previous failed mission is probably a bit much

well said, people just want to sit in front of their screen for hours waiting for "the rocket to be built" after they complete the design (as seems to be the recurring theme) are free to do so already.

Let's not force that on everyone else.

[OrtwinS]

I hope not, at least hoping they keep sandbox mode.

Devs already stated Sandbox will stay, don't worry.

Career is for those who like to play with restrictions (for Roleplay or challenge). People want restrictions, preferable ones that are logical or realistic.

Why else do you think Remote-tech is so popular? Or FAR? Or SCANsat?

Early FPS's had sci-fi guns with unlimited ammo, there was no no need to worry or plan. It's still fun to enable 'unlimited-ammo-cheat' when you just want to screw around in a game like GTA, but for the 'real' game, it removes part of the challenge.

[JakeGrey]

Just had an idea mulling this through.

How about waiting for the components to be manufactured? We can all see that next to every part in VAB there is a counter telling you how many parts you have available. This means that in the full game, we will need to buy parts in order to build rockets. How about a delay between order and delivery of the parts? You want 5 orange tanks? Fine it will take 25 000 Krones and 5 weeks to deliver them. The actual assembly of the vehicle could be fairly fast. Especially if you think about how bendy all the constructions are, I do not think Kerbals put much effort into actually welding the parts together.

I was just about to suggest something like that, although with the qualifier that it should be possible to automate some aspects of inventory management; something simple like "if quantity of [component] falls below n, order n more if we have enough ready cash" would be enough. I think this is an intended feature judging by the presence of the currently non-functional "quantity in stock" indicator.

And I personally think the space centre view should function a bit like the original X-COM's Geoscape, where time is sped up until some sort of event happens -researching something is complete, a craft's about to reach a manoeuvre node- that needs the player's attention.

EDIT: On further reflection, I think if SQUAD were to take that approach then it would be a good idea to have the ability to turn time-acceleration on while working in the VAB or hangar.

Edited November 11, 2013 by JakeGrey

[jfjohnny5]

And I personally think the space centre view should function a bit like the original X-COM's Geoscape, where time is sped up until some sort of event happens -researching something is complete, a craft's about to reach a manoeuvre node- that needs the player's attention.

Actually, that's a really good model for what I was thinking about; XCOM. Whether you're talking the original classic or the new one, they both really pivot around balancing two resources - time and money. Researching alien weapons and items took time. Then it took time to manufacture new inventions based on what your scientists cook up. You could zip through the time really quickly by speeding up the Geoscape, but you couldn't ignore it. It REALLY added a lot of depth to the game.

Someone earlier said that people WANT restrictions in games. It's very, very true. Adding a time element to construction helps give the player more meaningful choices to make about how to spend his money and time. For those who aren't interested in that kind of experience, that's why the sandbox exists. I think the mention of the new Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manger is also appropriate. It's turn-based, but time still matters. I think it's fair to say that both Space Program Manger and KSP are shooting for a similar end goal; the simulation and management of a space agency. If you want to make that a deep experience, you really need to take time into account.

[HeadHunter67]

It's really funny how this turns into a flame war so quickly.

I'm not seeing this "flame war" you speak of. I see people proposing an idea, and others explaining why they feel it would be of little purpose in the game. No one's been insulting other people, unless there's someone here who's so in love with the idea that any challenge to it is a personal offense.

Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager, or something like that, and it would take several turns to develop the technology and even build the rockets to launch. It worked pretty well, and it makes sense that a rocket will take time to build.

In a game like that, it does make sense. For one thing, it's a different type of game - the whole idea is that it's about long-term strategic planning, and time is one of the "currencies" of the game. You don't get to custom-design rockets, or fly them on your own missions. The "something like that" indicates you haven't played it and aren't aware that the only common factor is that they are somewhat related to space exploration. BASPM and KSP are about as similar as Minecraft and SimCity.

Except if you have to pay 15 000 Krones a month just for the maintenance of the KSC. Or if you have to make sure that all your kerbals in space have enough food and life support not to die in a week.

But since neither of these things is implemented in the game yet, it's currently an irrelevant example. If and when those things happen, then time becomes a currency. Until then, making things take time contributes nothing but pointless delay.

For example you have a probe on route to Duna with an encounter in 12 hours. The fact slips your mind and you are fooling around in LKO and you build and launch a Tanker to refuel your space station. Time skips by 3 days for construction and you realize your Duna probe has missed the insertion burn and is now hurling into deep space being completely useless ...

...so you're saying that players shouldn't be able to do anything else while awaiting a ship's construction in the VAB? Wow, you've made the proposed idea even less fun for the game. Is there any good reason why Mission Control should be suspended from duty while the VAB crew builds for a different mission?

Someone earlier said that people WANT restrictions in games. It's very, very true. I think the mention of the new Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manger is also appropriate. It's turn-based, but time still matters. I think it's fair to say that both Space Program Manger and KSP are shooting for a similar end goal; the simulation and management of a space agency. If you want to make that a deep experience, you really need to take time into account.

I think anyone who's played both could tell you that they're nothing alike. KSP is not about "the simulation and management of a space agency", it's about building and flying rockets. BASPM is not - you don't design rockets, you don't control them in flight, you simply plan missions and manage a budget.

KSP is not about a "deep" experience, it's about having fun, and silly green men, and lithobraking and spontaneous interpretive staging and explosions. It's not fair to say that people "want restrictions", as that's far too general. People want some sort of structure and boundaries that are appropriate to the type of game in question. What's been proven, time and again in video gaming, is that people don't want to wait needlessly just for the sake of verisimilitude. Ask any Star Wars Galaxies player about the 10-minute wait at spaceports if you want an example of what needless waiting accomplishes.

[J.Random]

The idea wouldn't work for building rockets - players will have nothing to do after designing a rocket, so they will just timewarp to the launch time, making it unnecessary complication.

Where it would work (at least for me), however, is if we've had some sort of "prototyping labs" - some new KSC building where we could create procedural-anything from predefined part templates. Then building rockets from already researched parts would take no time at all, but creating new parts could take time in research phase, testing and production. After the new part appeared in part list, again, it could be used without any time delay.

[toomuchbrew]

I like the idea. It will make it more realistic. Having to plan for launch windows makes an additional challenge. I think.

[Luckless]

I would strongly support an in game time mechanic for build times, research times, etc, so that the worlds move and force you to think ahead.

However for it to work well in career mode I think we need a few additional changes to the game.

1. Move away from the pre-built space centre, and have it as something the user develops themselves. Selecting different models (with various stats and costs) that get built over time. Investing in a larger engineering wing of the R&D labs would reduce the time it takes for a design to be 'processed to blue prints'. Adding additional machining shops decreases build times. Larger VABs lets you assemble bigger crafts and do existing ones faster. Multiple VABs lets you build missions in parallel.

2. Move toward a "Mission Planner" style game play as an option. Being able to 'jump forward in time' to plan your nodes and adjustment windows and let you work backwards for larger and more complex missions with your transfers and such planned. Include some of the measurement and instrumentation that mods like MechJeb or Kerbal Engineer offer us. Probably want the Kerbal Alarm Clock or a similar tool included as a native part of the game as well. Give me the tools to plan out a mission in game so I don't have to do it with spreadsheets, scripts, and a calculator. Just give me a digital version of a slide rule... Then I can plan out a mission that will happen Years in advance, then take those numbers to the Design/Engineering building and sort out a rocket to actually carry the mission out.

For everyone whining that they don't want to 'wait for stuff', I do have to ask how they do planetary transfers and the like. Load up with insane amounts of fuel and burn like mad? "Ignore alignment, add more boosters!"?

[Superfluous J]

For everyone whining that they don't want to 'wait for stuff', I do have to ask how they do planetary transfers and the like. Load up with insane amounts of fuel and burn like mad? "Ignore alignment, add more boosters!"?

Actually a lot of people do just that.

As someone who doesn't do just that, but doesn't want this, I see a big difference between those 2 waits. Waiting for a transfer is not a game-imposed wait. That's a wait that's the result of the simulation and (as you evidenced) is optional if I want to spend the fuel.

Also, I don't wait for planetary transfer windows. I put them in KAC and then do other things. If I can't build a rocket I can't "do other things" usually so yes, this gameplay addition would merely add a lot of warp time for me.

[Deadweasel]

The way I'm seeing it being implemented here (and the way I think was originally suggested) is not that you're being forced to actually wait through an amount of time for a ship to be built, but that the time is automatically added to the clock as a kind of "penalty".

So you don't actually have to wait for those hours for your ship to be ready, but it costs you those hours nonetheless, which will have an affect on other missions already in-flight.

[J.Random]

For everyone whining that they don't want to 'wait for stuff', I do have to ask how they do planetary transfers and the like. Load up with insane amounts of fuel and burn like mad? "Ignore alignment, add more boosters!"?

Player doesn't have to wait for transfer. It's just more efficient to wait. And it's simply done by timewarp. Or by building something else and play with stuff (probably exploding it in the process). Build time, however, will lock player out of the "piloting" part of the game. Test flights will be problematic. Moreso, imagine yourself as a new player, starting the game the very first time. Right now: "oooh, rockitz!", build, launch, fail (also "oooh, 'splosions!"), fix, launch, fail, fix, launch, "Yay, orbit!", build, launch, fail, fix, launch, fail, fix, launch, "Yay, Mun!". Artificial delays between launches will become annoying very soon.