How important is a resource system to you?

[SlinkyBlue]

As I'm sure a good portion of us have heard, plans for stock resources in KSP have been shelved for the time being.

As a KSP player who as always had the awesome potential of resource mining in the back of my head for the future of KSP, I'm severely disappointed. I play entirely stock, while I appreciate the modding community I generally have wanted to stay on top of what direction Squad is taking KSP.

This is my opinion:

One of the central factors (if not THE MOST central factor) that makes simulation and management games fun is increasingly complicated logistics. For example, as a new player, there's a special feeling that arises when you look at the potential theoretical logistics and strategy in a game, and see such complexity that you think to yourself "That's ridiculous!" I'm sure we've all been there before, only a few months later to completely understand the system and be juggling more than you thought you ever could.

We all got that feeling when we opened up the orbital map and saw Jool and Eeloo for the first time. But, unfortunately, once you get there and do what you want, you're done. I don't do well at making my own content.

This totally sounds corny, but it's true; when I was a little kid, like 8 or 9 years old playing Star Fox 64, I always thought to myself that one of the best games that could ever exist would be a game where you can build a spaceship and fly out to new planets and stars and colonize them. And look; I've got that game installed on my computer right here in 2013 with 210 hours logged on it. But alas, I've run out of things to do in it, and I know that the key to increasing that 210 hours to 1000 or more over several years would be... a resource system.

So, of course, I'm a little disappointed. I'm sure KSP will be even more fun and I'm sure Squad will do great things with it. But, I don't see why anyone would put a cap on space.

How important is a resource system to you?

Edited December 14, 2013 by SlinkyBlue

[SkyRender]

Seeing as I was willing to start up a modding project to integrate a stock-esque resources system into the game, I'd say they're pretty important to me. But I also recognize that I'm amongst the minority in my interest in such a thing. Which is exactly why I did start the project, naturally; it's the demesne of modders to fill in the extended content beyond what most of the userbase is going to be interested in, especially when the game is still in mid-development. And that's how it should be. It's not fair for the minority to demand the attention of the majority of the devteam's resources.

[SlinkyBlue]

I was curious if I really was in the minority, which is why I made this poll.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

I really was looking forward to the resource system, but I will still play KSP without it.

It means I'll have to keep my eyes open for MODS that compensate for the loss.

[Decho]

I'll still play without it, but I am disappointed it won't be in the stock game (and those parts we saw looked really nice too).

[SkyRender]

I was curious if I really was in the minority, which is why I made this poll.

Completely understandable. But as with any form of metrics that's voluntary, you're going to get skewed results. Most people don't voice their opinions if they're not extremely passionate, and the majority of any userbase for a game is not that passionate (at least, not at all times; it's entirely possible to be very into a game for a time, back off from its community for a time but still play it, and then come back later; or even to never really come back to the community at all and enjoy it; or to never be a part of the community but still enjoy the game). It doesn't take a lot of intuition to see that expanded resources is not something most of the player base is going to enjoy for KSP: many have problems just getting into orbit consistently, let alone getting out to another planet or moon, landing, gathering resources, getting back into orbit, and returning to Kerbin.

I know it's kind of sad, but we simply must face up to the facts: what we want is not what most players are even at the skill level necessary to appreciate, let alone also want. That doesn't mean we're out of options, but it does mean that we have to be resourceful ourselves in ensuring that we do get what we're after by virtue of the skill present in our own community.

[OtherDalfite]

Resources was the last big thing for KSP that I really wanted besides a proper career mode, and not the sham point and click to win thing we have now. I'd be willing to wait a while for career mode to be fully done, but resources was something that was about 70% done and could have been finished in a month.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I consider it pretty essential in the long run but its not urgent right now. I'd rather it was added in one form or another before version 1.0 though.

[regex]

I'm honestly on the fence about it. For me, a resource system in KSP has to involve active gameplay, not a lot of busy work or timewarping. I'd like it to be there but not be the reason I'm there. I'm not interested in massive infrastructure but would rather have smaller things, like maybe a tiny probe creating its own fuel after retrieving a core sample in order to return home, or maybe mining ice to help keep a base going. Kethane really hasn't done that for me yet and I don't think the earlier SQUAD-proposed system would have done that either (in fact, the SQUAD proposal looked incredibly tedious).

[PDCWolf]

I will lose interest, well, in fact I already lost -some- of it, not because of resources in itself but because of what implies on dev's compromise, mutual trust and things like that.

[Themohawkninja]

Somewhere in between "I will lose interest in KSP without it", and "It sounds fun, but I'll still enjoy the game without it".

I've heard that the reasoning behind the unimplementation of it is due to the complexity on the part of the player. I don't see how this is a valid reason, since the player could simply choose to ignore the whole system, and if they want to, pick it up later.

You don't have to dock ships, but the option's there, so why not give us the option of resources as just that; an <u><b>option</b></u>.

Anyone else feel the same way?

[Why No Resources]

Without resources being added I'll probably lose interest in KSP and move on to other games. It's just such a big feature and it would give us so much more to do once we reach other celestial bodies since all you can do now is to plant a flag and spam science.

[GusTurbo]

Somewhere in between "I will lose interest in KSP without it", and "It sounds fun, but I'll still enjoy the game without it".

I've heard that the reasoning behind the unimplementation of it is due to the complexity on the part of the player. I don't see how this is a valid reason, since the player could simply choose to ignore the whole system, and if they want to, pick it up later.

You don't have to dock ships, but the option's there, so why not give us the option of resources as just that; an <u><b>option</b></u>.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I agree with this 100%.

[CalculusWarrior]

While I won't lose interest in KSP without resources, I do agree that adding them in as an option would be the best (docking was a very good example, it has only three parts in the VAB/SPH, yet the sheer number of uses for those parts is immeasurable).

[Bothersome]

You left out one option -- "I will go to the dark side (MODS) for resources."

[Hiromoto]

From the beginning I've wanted to mine resources on other planets and use the resources to build outposts, space stations, ect. The science system gives you a reason to go places, but the resource system would give you a reason to really colonize. I've been using kethane mod, and orbital construction mod. Which are a good stand in, but the devs could do so much more.

[I Faw Down]

Resources were something I really was looking forward to. Squad doesn't seem to be making the same game I bought and was so excited for when they first started their store.

[Scotius]

For me resources always have been a part of organic progression:

I get ships in orbit, and to the moons.

Interplanetary distances demand bigger ships - too big to be easily lifted in one piece. Solution? Launch couple of separate ships, and dock them together in orbit - creating a mothership that can get the job done.

Such ship requires a lot of fuel to push its mass around. Solution? Either launch a series of orbital tankers that will slowly fill mothership's tanks, or build a refuelling station in parking orbit to do it in one go. Second option requires more investment at first, but allows for more elasticity with planning refuelling trips.

Said refuelling trips require a lot of time. Doing six consecutive cargo launches stops being fun fast. And sooner or later you realise that you are burning a lot of fuel climbing up Kerbin's deep gravity well. Fuel that could be used for better purposes - i.e. launching a ship to Jool. Solution? Get fuel cheaper. Fuel from Kerbin costs 4500 m\s dV. From the Mun its 3420 m\s (if my calculations based on KSP dV map available on the forum are correct). No, even less because fuel shuttle goes to the Mun almost empty, and can do whole trip using only nukes. Getting fuel from Minmus is even cheaper, though more time consuming.

At this stage of development it doesn't mean much. Everything is free. As long as you are willing to put hours of playtime into it, you can do everything without the need to use external resources. But in full career mode, when you are on budget those small savings will start look enticing. And you will have perfectly logical and viable solution under your nose - in form of Kethane mod or something else. But only if you are OK with modding your game. Players preferring stock option will be handicapped there.

It's simply the way to go guys. NASA says so, and a lot of scientists is already looking into ISRU options: from extracting methane from Mars soil, to excavating helium-3 from Moon's regolith to asteroid mining.

So? Why cut this option entirely from a game that strives to semi-realistically follow real life space exploration? It's illogical, counterproductive and hard to justify. Because it would be too hard for new players? Please...I was a newbie once: scared of docking, sweating during Mun landing, nervous about aerobraking. Feeling overwhelmed and inferior and plain dumb sometimes. But i got it now - i can get everywhere in game and return my kerbonauts home alive. And i feel pretty good about it. I don't want this game to be easy and dumbed down - if i'd want dumb i'd play some 'mainstream' games with about 20 hours of actual content inside. Dont go this way SQUAD - please.

[FITorion]

The game does lack activities to do on the planets. Resources is one way... I won't say it's the best way... to give things to do on the surface. There are other things that could be done. Multiplayer is not one of those things.

I have no plans to partake in any Multiplayer. I could be convinced maybe to participate if it was set up for privately run servers like minecraft. A little LAN game here and there could be fun from time to time. Multiplayer does not solve the problem of there being nothing to do on the planets once you get there. Resources does solve that. If no systems like resources to increase the activities available on planets is implemented and multiplayer is implemented then I will eventually tire of KSP and go away. If multiplayer is done in such away as to require a subscription to access the Squad controlled servers and no private servers are allowed... then I will never partake in multiplayer ever.

[Bothersome]

NASA says so, and a lot of scientists is already looking into ISRU options: from extracting methane from Mars soil, to excavating helium-3 from Moon's regolith to asteroid mining.

This might not be the best place to ask this because it might be slightly off topic but yet still maybe game related...

How is helium-3 useful? Is it a useful fuel? Standard helium is not. So how is helium-3 an better? Anyone is allowed to answer by the way. It's been my understanding that helium is made at the decay of uranium to radium?? Or something like that. So they use helium deposits on Earth to help locate uranium deposits. Note, I am aware of the usefulness of helium in manufacturing, medical, other things. But as far as helium-3 is concerned, I don't see any grand uses to go to all that trouble to get it.

[sal_vager]

It's sought after for nuclear fusion research, see here

Also yeah please stay on topic.

[RocketPilot573]

It would be nice, but I don't want it right now... What KSP really needs is a proper aerodynamics system. I am really, REALLY, getting tired of my planes flipping and spinning for no reason what-so-ever. Seriously, I think something like FAR in the stock game will benefit it much, MUCH more than resources at this point in time.

Basically, resources are not all that useful and would be just for fun, but aerodynamics will do a lot to advance the game.

Edited December 14, 2013 by RocketPilot573

[I_Killed_Jeb]

It would be nice, but I don't want it right now... What KSP really needs is a proper aerodynamics system. I am really, REALLY, getting tired of my planed flipping and spinning for no reason what-so-ever. Seriously, I think something like FAR in the stock game will benefit it much, MUCH more than resources at this point in time.

This is also true.

[Skyler4856]

This might not be the best place to ask this because it might be slightly off topic but yet still maybe game related...

How is helium-3 useful? Is it a useful fuel? Standard helium is not. So how is helium-3 an better? Anyone is allowed to answer by the way. It's been my understanding that helium is made at the decay of uranium to radium?? Or something like that.

You're referring to alpha particles. But he-3 apparently is useful in fusion reactions.

[Brotoro]

Maybe this is just Squad's way of making our space programs more realistic: We got to interesting places . . . . . and then the cool advanced programs got cancelled.