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

[Deadweasel]

Honestly, I think costs alone will be enough of a limitation in this regard, especially in light of the fact that the game has been so successful in its current form. Even if the sandbox mode remained unfettered, people would still like the challenge of the Career mode, and the current direction it's taking is looking promising for offering that challenge.

That said, the one thing that has never been influenced in either mode is the time represented in designing and building your crafts, which I think would have been a big frustration and one of the major call-outs by players if it had been around in the earlier versions. If build time were implemented in career mode, without the option to turn it off, it could prove to be cumbersome enough to some players to avoid career mode altogether at the least, or the entire game at the worst, which would be an absolute shame after seeing what kind of incredible following it has been generating so far.

Also: I think there's an angle here for NOT including it that hasn't been called out. When we're playing this game, designing, building, testing and flying ships and planes, sometimes multiple vessels at once, we're actually taking the roles of what would require many people in many departments and disciplines at one time. Forcing the build to take time just seems out of place, next to the fact that it's possible to actually "fly" to any ship anywhere in the system and control it directly in the blink of an eye. Where does one draw the line between fun playability, and becoming a tedious detail management simulator ala Orbiter or *shudder* The Sims?

[Torham234]

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.

Wait I am not sure I am getting this correctly. You are advocating against a game mechanic just because it hasn't been implemented yet? I think the OP was trying to discuss a mechanic witch, when implemented would exist in the finished vanilla KSP along with all the other planned, yet still unimplemented features like money or budgets. Saying that it should not be implemented because there are other game mechanics witch are missing is like saying that there is no point in introducing space plane hangar, since there are no wing parts in the game yet or indeed introducing Research mechanics before it becomes meaningful for the career mode somehow.

...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?

Right, this one just went over your head completely. I was, in fact, pointing out a potential flaw in implementing a construction time as it was discussed at that time.

[Deadweasel]

Wait I am not sure I am getting this correctly. You are advocating against a game mechanic just because it hasn't been implemented yet? I think the OP was trying to discuss a mechanic witch, when implemented would exist in the finished vanilla KSP along with all the other planned, yet still unimplemented features like money or budgets. Saying that it should not be implemented because there are other game mechanics witch are missing is like saying that there is no point in introducing space plane hangar, since there are no wing parts in the game yet or indeed introducing Research mechanics before it becomes meaningful for the career mode somehow.

Actually, (and not to de-rail your point in any way) there wasn't a spaceplane hangar at the time precisely because there were no plane parts. C7 was instrumental in starting the whole plane craze, which garnered notice, got him hired on, and which then required someplace to allow you to use those plane parts in a more intuitive way than the VAB allowed for. Boom: Space Plane Hangar.

Essentially that feature only came to be when somebody came around and introduced an idea that pretty much demanded one.

I agree with your sentiment otherwise, though. Saying that something shouldn't be introduced because there's no (obvious) mechanic for it is a little weird. That's pretty much how this game came to be, isn't it? I mean, there was no obvious way to build different rockets designs and fire them skyward with rampant abandon, so somebody MADE it. All there was before was Orbiter, which isn't nearly as approachable as this game has turned out to be.

All that said, I have to appreciate OP's question, as much as I might be against the idea personally. It's a unique idea and does certainly garner some active thought and discussion, regardless of what direction the devs choose to take in the meantime.

[Superfluous J]

Also: I think there's an angle here for NOT including it that hasn't been called out. When we're playing this game, designing, building, testing and flying ships and planes, sometimes multiple vessels at once, we're actually taking the roles of what would require many people in many departments and disciplines at one time.

Actually I brought this up on page 2

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?

[Deadweasel]

Actually I brought this up on page 2

*cough*

So you did! Sorry I missed that part. >_>

[HeadHunter67]

Wait I am not sure I am getting this correctly. You are advocating against a game mechanic just because it hasn't been implemented yet?

You sure didn't understand correctly. I'm advocating against adding this mechanic because it does indeed rely on things that have not been (and may never be) implemented. As I said at least twice before, I'm all for discussing this if and when time and money become real and relevant factors in the game. Until then, it's a wasted effort because there's no way to know if we're duplicating work already in progress or even heading off in the completely wrong direction. This isn't the same as the spaceplane issue - you'd have to basically make time a factor, and this change alone isn't going to accomplish that, for all the reasons I've already explained. Those who feel it needs to be in place are welcome to decide how much time a craft "should" take, and time warp to that point - you don't need a mod or update to do that.

I'm not saying "I'm totally against it, don't do it", I'm saying "Now is the wrong time to be discussing building upon a framework that doesn't even exist yet".

Edited November 11, 2013 by HeadHunter67

[Torham234]

I'm not saying "I'm totally against it, don't do it", I'm saying "Now is the wrong time to be discussing building upon a framework that doesn't even exist yet".

Fair point well made.

[Deadweasel]

You sure didn't understand correctly. I'm advocating against adding this mechanic because it does indeed rely on things that have not been (and may never be) implemented. As I said at least twice before, I'm all for discussing this if and when time and money become real and relevant factors in the game. Until then, it's a wasted effort because there's no way to know if we're duplicating work already in progress or even heading off in the completely wrong direction. This isn't the same as the spaceplane issue - you'd have to basically make time a factor, and this change alone isn't going to accomplish that, for all the reasons I've already explained. Those who feel it needs to be in place are welcome to decide how much time a craft "should" take, and time warp to that point - you don't need a mod or update to do that.

I'm not saying "I'm totally against it, don't do it", I'm saying "Now is the wrong time to be discussing building upon a framework that doesn't even exist yet".

Expanding the thoughts on the mechanics side.

So let's say a new ship's build cost (in time) will be some intially-large amount. Say, 150 ton vessel takes 20 hours of time to build. Each launch of that same design afterward takes less time because the design is already known and tested.

Now what happens if you change a couple of struts on that ship? Doesn't it become a "new" design, costing another 20 hours all over again?

If not, is there a percentage you can change before it's considered new? How will the player know what changes are about to cost him/her a lot more time to launch?

What determines the time cost? Just general part count? Monetary cost of parts involved?

Also, how will the player be able to know how much a design will cost just to test launch, and how will they be able to know what that cost will do to other flights already in-progress?

The concept of a launch costing time potentially introduces a lot of additional work with how the player interacts with the game, what information is presented, and where it's presented. This is the kind of information that is currently only produced with maneuver nodes and mods like Kerbal Alarm clock, both of which have their functionality based pretty much solely in Map view.

If a launch is going to cost time in the future (at the time of launch), then some things would have to be adapted to give the player more information in advance, or it's going to become too difficult to manage more than one active flight at a time, which would be a big impediment to players who have already come to know this game as offering a great deal more capability than that.

[jfjohnny5]

I'm advocating against adding this mechanic because it does indeed rely on things that have not been (and may never be) implemented.

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that money and a budget will be implemented. I don't think there's really any question about that. How that all plays out is going to be a big factor though, I agree.

[regex]

I don't really like this idea; I don't think it adds much of anything to the gameplay. I can understand the disassociation with reality that things like this cause, but from a purely gameplay perspective it feels very arbitrary and adds literally no challenge. For instance, if I design my Duna craft and am ready to build it, and find that the "launch-ready time" is after my launch window, I'll just scrap the mission and do something else. In fact, I'd argue that it is kind of off-putting for that reason alone. The strategy there isn't exactly "involved", it's more just a nuisance.

This is definitely mod material, I don't think it belongs in KSP proper.

[Torham234]

You could try your luck in the "ask us anything" event on reddit, as per advertised on the Daily Kerbal blog... I am sure the devs already have at least vague idea about this sort of thing ( production times/delays for assembling rockets/purchasing parts)

[Aragosnat]

One of those I can see where it can add a challange to the game. Just don't think it would add a lot to it unless one is a stickler for on time launches or we have to deal with life support for our Kerbals or want to do a rescue mission to prtevent craft destruction (there is a mod for life support).

Would be great if we could customize our career start. Then one could choose weather or not to turn such a feature like this on or off.

Someone mention what would happen to existing craft when adding new parts. Easiest I would think of for making it happen is the new parts add time without adding the origanal's craft build time unless building from the ground up. Also would think taking away old parts from existing ship would take time to do as well.

[OrtwinS]

You sure didn't understand correctly. I'm advocating against adding this mechanic because it does indeed rely on things that have not been (and may never be) implemented. As I said at least twice before, I'm all for discussing this if and when time and money become real and relevant factors in the game. Until then, it's a wasted effort because there's no way to know if we're duplicating work already in progress or even heading off in the completely wrong direction. This isn't the same as the spaceplane issue - you'd have to basically make time a factor, and this change alone isn't going to accomplish that, for all the reasons I've already explained. Those who feel it needs to be in place are welcome to decide how much time a craft "should" take, and time warp to that point - you don't need a mod or update to do that.

I'm not saying "I'm totally against it, don't do it", I'm saying "Now is the wrong time to be discussing building upon a framework that doesn't even exist yet".

[vulcan voice] Your logic is flawed [/vulcan voice]

Recources have been announced long LONG ago, according to your 'logic' people should never have begun, or even continued with the Kethane mod. Clearly a lot of people enjoy a mechanic that is most likely 'duplicating work', 'wasted effort', and probably 'a wrong direction'. They should never have done that, because the 'real' ksp-resources have been announced right?

And remote-tech is wasted effort to, why would anyone want to use something that might expand a certain idea/mechanic that doesn't even exist yet? [/sarcasm]

The spaceplane example is still very valid. Before it was introduced there was (near to) no demand for it. By (mod) implementation it became something people wanted and enjoyed.

Yes, some people WANT to make time a factor, they think the'll enjoy it.

Making this an actual mod will provide us with practical feedback if for example "1hour game-time/part" is too little or too much. Then the next iteration of the mod will be better.

The idea will take shape and improve as we go, this is the very nature of development!

Clarification: NOBODY wants to stare at a screen for hours. In this proposed mechanic one can press a 'build this' button, and it will be 'build' in the background (say it'll take 2 months). How you spend these 2 months is up to you, if there is nothing else to do I suggest you warp it. But you can also launch a mission that was previously build, or do experiments on Mun with that lander you have in Mun orbit and execute that mid-course correction for your Moho probe. None of those activities will be affected by this mechanic.

But when you see there is Jool transfer window next week, you won't be able to 'insta-build' a ship, should have thought of that before. Of course, you can still build it now (over the course of X months), launch it in orbit, then time-warp a year ahead to the next window and then do your transfer.

The difference: you just had to 'wait/warp' a year due to bad planning. This is something SOME people want, if you don't like it don't use it. True, this extra year currently doesn't cost anything (since we don't have to pay salaries or maintenance). But it's the IDEA, the feeling, the roleplay that one cannot insta-build rescue missions anymore. If you use this in combination with a life support mod it will increase the challenge even more (then time will really become worth something). There are no quick rescues in space... (unless you planned and prepared and have a rescue craft standing by...)

PS OP: You should remove the "Right now time pauses while in the VAB." line from the first post, it implies you want to change that particular mechanic. I thought we had already established we still want infinite design time, just not 'insta-build' 'cheating'.

Perhaps replace it with "Right now we can build ANY rocket within 0 seconds of game time."

That would put the focus on the building mechanic we want to change, not the designing part.

Edited November 11, 2013 by OrtwinS
added PS

[Skuld]

I would not like this feature unless it could be turned off as an option.

[HeadHunter67]

[vulcan voice] Your logic is flawed [/vulcan voice]

Recources have been announced long LONG ago, according to your 'logic' people should never have begun, or even continued with the Kethane mod.

Don't use that as an example and talk to me of "logic". Kethane is one resource - the ones introduced into the game may be different. TIME, on the other hand, is not something you can exactly have several different varities of, now can you?

Likewise with Remote Tech - you're comparing something built from scratch with a system that modifies something that already exists in-game, even if it is not currently of significance.

If you had a point, you went about it all the wrong way.

And don't tell me "if you don't like it, don't use it" when it's a suggested feature of the game that we won't be able to avoid. I'll tell you what I said before - "If you want building rockets to take time, decide how much time you think is proper (since each of you will have a different idea of that, anyhow), and then timewarp until you feel the rocket is "ready". You already have that feature.

[Torham234]

I would not like this feature unless it could be turned off as an option.

I really do not like this argument. I have already heard (read) it many, many times implied in KSP alone ( not to mention all the other games forums). If this was a valid strategy , before you start a new game there would be a list of options several pages long. It's just not feasible to have a " tick box " for every imaginable feature the community happens to come up with...

On topic: To sum up my position: I like the idea, perhaps as I indicated in my second post. Parts cost money and time to deliver( like you have to place an order for parts and it takes time to manufacture them), but the assembly of the vehicle itself can be fairly speedy.

There is no harm in discussing the idea, even if its just a theoretical exercise. After all, we need to kill the time until the full game somehow .

[Camelotking524]

They could always implement something similar to what BARIS had. In that you have to order the parts each season. But BARIS was turn based. In KSP you can have delivery take a certain amount of days or weeks that the player could easily warp past. But this would also implement a set of strategy to missions. Like if a rescue mission needed to be launched quickly, the player would have to use what parts they had available, instead of those fancy newly researched Mainsails that Rockman is schedule to deliver next week.

[regex]

In KSP you can have delivery take a certain amount of days or weeks that the player could easily warp past. But this would also implement a set of strategy to missions.

There's no strategy in that, there's only nuisance. Need parts? ~Timewarp~ Waiting is bad gameplay, let's avoid that.

Like if a rescue mission needed to be launched quickly, the player would have to use what parts they had available, instead of those fancy newly researched Mainsails that Rockman is schedule to deliver next week.

Big deal, do the rescue with the parts you have. This could also end up promoting even more waiting where you have players timewarping until they have a ****-ton of parts and then (and only then) doing a mission because they may have to do a rescue and feel they should always be fully prepared. In the end you have a bunch of paralyzed players instead of bold explorers following in the Kerbal tradition. That sounds really boring and not at all in the spirit of KSP. It'd really suck if I had to wait through four years of launch windows to do a Duna mission because I have some arbitrary wait time for parts.

[jfjohnny5]

PS OP: You should remove the "Right now time pauses while in the VAB." line from the first post, it implies you want to change that particular mechanic. I thought we had already established we still want infinite design time, just not 'insta-build' 'cheating'.

Good suggestion. Edited.

[Ekku Zakku]

Those arguing that time warping to get your parts or to get your rocket built would be annoying, to me it wouldn't be; I see it as an opportunity to multitask and do other things while my rocket is building! This is something I don't bother doing currently, because the game doesn't give me any incentive to multitask, but having to wait would really motivate me to do so.

Big deal, do the rescue with the parts you have. This could also end up promoting even more waiting where you have players timewarping until they have a ****-ton of parts and then (and only then) doing a mission because they may have to do a rescue and feel they should always be fully prepared. In the end you have a bunch of paralyzed players instead of bold explorers following in the Kerbal tradition. That sounds really boring and not at all in the spirit of KSP. It'd really suck if I had to wait through four years of launch windows to do a Duna mission because I have some arbitrary wait time for parts.

No! This would be impossible with a budget; early on there would be little money to spend on extra parts, because you need every scrap of money to do missions. Later on having spare parts would be trivial, then it'd pretty much be like the Sandbox, since you'd have more money to spend than you would know what to do with. It's self-balancing =3

Anywho, I've got lots of ideas for my mod based on this thread, it's such a great discussion you're all having =3 I know I will have speed settings with "quick", "normal", and "slow/realistic", with the last option being as close to reality as possible (gonna have to do some research there lol).

As for researched parts taking time before use (which I think is the most needed feature; I managed a 2-launch tech tree unlock after all...), I feel like being able to build rockets with those parts in the VAB should be possible, but with added time (just per each new part) to the "construction" time for the rocket. Once it's built, that added time is removed or lowered exponentially, so subsequent rockets with those parts (NOT just the first rocket you used with those parts) can be constructed more quickly. I believe this will make balancing the new rocket vs old rocket timing problem a lot easier, so it'll be as simple as only adding a small (maybe just a couple of days) delay to brand new or modified rockets (adding a few struts or a new science part to an old rocket shouldn't add a lot of time). It will also make it pretty easy for the player to guesstimate the time needed to build a new rocket, so they won't be surprised by the construction time after their Duna window passes them by. It will be something any player can easily learn to expect and plan for.

As for time passing in the VAB, I might add it as an option in my mod (just a simple checkbox, can be toggled on and off at any time). I feel like it will add to the game in situations where you know you couldn't have had any engineers working on something, like in emergency situations, or even a completely new idea you only just realized you wanted to make. Sure it won't add a lot of time in relation to your construction time, but planning and development both take their own time in the real world. Some people argue that development can take place before planning is completed (those who don't want VAB time added to the construction time), but some also argue that last minute changes to the planning can also throw away any completed development work (decided to change from your old booster to a new one with more dV? That would throw away all the time your builders just took to assemble the fuel tanks and engines! VAB time is for you!).

Every page of discussion in this thread is adding to my vision of the depth of such a feature. I'm enjoying my vision of it, and I can't wait to play with the finished product =3

Edited November 12, 2013 by Ekku Zakku

[regex]

No! This would be impossible with a budget; early on there would be little money to spend on extra parts, because you need every scrap of money to do missions. Later on having spare parts would be trivial, then it'd pretty much be like the Sandbox, since you'd have more money to spend than you would know what to do with. It's self-balancing

So, as you see it I'll get a "mission" and then I'll design a rocket, and wait until my parts arrive, and wait until my rocket gets built, and then I'll be able to fly my "mission" (let's hope I designed the rocket correctly because if I send up too little delta-V or am missing a strut in the right place I'll have to wait for more parts and the ship to get built again). Once that "mission" is over I'll get another "mission" where I'll have to design a rocket and then wait for the parts to arrive, and then for the rocket to be built, ad-nauseam? At least until I'm rolling in cash and can maybe do something that I actually want to do other than prefab "missions"?

[SpaceHips]

Since time holds no real meaning in KSP, i seriously doubt it.

You'd need to either come up with a whole new system or run that separately from game time.

Maybe something like locking you in timewarp until construction is complete?

Doesn't sound like something i'd enjoy anyways, waiting for no reason.

[Ekku Zakku]

So, as you see it I'll get a "mission" and then I'll design a rocket, and wait until my parts arrive, and wait until my rocket gets built, and then I'll be able to fly my "mission" (let's hope I designed the rocket correctly because if I send up too little delta-V or am missing a strut in the right place I'll have to wait for more parts and the ship to get built again). Once that "mission" is over I'll get another "mission" where I'll have to design a rocket and then wait for the parts to arrive, and then for the rocket to be built, ad-nauseam? At least until I'm rolling in cash and can maybe do something that I actually want to do other than prefab "missions"?

Not necessarily, there are ways to make campaigns more fun than that XD The way I see it is, you get grants in order to do a mission, so you can certainly multitask and do several at once. The downside is, if you use the entirety of a grant to stockpile spare parts (to use at your own accord), you're not going to get the requirements for that grant/mission done, and the agency that issues the grants aren't going to open up more for you in that line of missions (pretty much like a tech tree, you're not going to go straight from your first manned Mun landing to a manned Tylo landing). Of course, it'd still be possible to use grant money on a rescue mission (which would then award your failed mission with some level of completion), but you'd have to make some cutbacks from other missions in order to finish the requirements for the grant, or complete several other missions in order to save up money to complete it. It's getting more into the management genre of games, but what else is there to expect from a space program game? It'd only be a small part of KSP's campaign anyways (the fun stuff is always going to be in flying rockets, something Sandbox will always be about), and I can see it being simple, intuitive, and not very management-like unless the player wants to play it that way. 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.

[Ekku Zakku]

Since time holds no real meaning in KSP, i seriously doubt it.

You'd need to either come up with a whole new system or run that separately from game time.

Maybe something like locking you in timewarp until construction is complete?

Doesn't sound like something i'd enjoy anyways, waiting for no reason.

This is far from enjoyable, and is really simple to get around. Allow the user to skip (not even just regular time warp) straight until it's ready (with the single click of a button) if there are no other missions, or have a time when it will be ready, and not let the craft be put on the pad until after that time. This will allow time warping, flying other missions, building more rockets, w/e you want! The player doesn't wait, the player gets to do anything they want, but the Kerbals have to wait, just like we do irl. It's simply a matter of realism, but without forcing it upon the player.

EDIT: sorry about the double post, meant to edit my last one and instead I hit "Reply with quote"... I do that a lot -___-'

[_Aramchek_]

The player doesn't wait, the player gets to do anything they want, but the Kerbals have to wait, just like we do irl. It's simply a matter of realism, but without forcing it upon the player.

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.