How to handle the "over time" problem (And anyone know if squad is looking at this?)

[allmhuran]

A lot of "wouldn't it be great if...." features that could be in KSP have a common problem: They all involve some kind of mechanic over time.

For example, it might seem obvious that in a game where you run a simulated space program, you might send up a satellite to Munar orbit and leave it there scanning the munar surface for landing sites while you go do something else.

The problem with any mechanic like this in KSP seems to boil down to two fundamental points:

1) We need to be able to accelerate time to very high levels, otherwise some parts of the game would be impossibly tedious. But this time acceleration also means anything that "happens over time" in the game can, in fact, happen extremely quickly, and the "over time" mechanic becomes meaningless.

2) For a craft to be active (for example, a mapping satellite actively mapping) it must be the focused craft. So you would have to sit there and watch your satellite perform its orbits (or, you know, go make a sandwitch). Being able to time warp doesn't actually solve this, because the problem is that this is quite explicitly "not playing the game", and clearly we don't want to introduce a mechanic into the game that by definition prevents people from really playing it.

So, has anyone seen any words from squad about whether this is a challenge on their radar? Or does anyone have any suggestions as to how we could have things like scanning/mapping/data collection satellites in a way that still allows the player to actually be playing the game?

The trivial suggestion would of course be to allow non-focused craft to do a certain set of things. But we forum users can't really know how hard that might be to implement, it might require fairly core engine changes, which is why I'm wondering if there is any official comms about this?

[CodatheSpaceFox]

This is actually relevant to my own suggestion that would focus mostly on fitting many in game issues into a dynamic time frame.

Simply put, with something like career, time should be valued as much as used to the players advantage. Such as in real events, while we steadily advance in our own technology, we still have satellites and probes in space from a time before a relevant advancement in the same technological field.

So, as far as time skipping goes. I'd personally leave it to the predicted difficulty system, and the player's preference combined to set the pace relative to certain transpiring events, I won't branch into too much detail, but this would in turn require simple events, such as mapping, passive research, and maybe even resource collecting in the future to be treated similarly to the rail system, by being steadily recorded with minimal requirement in the "focused" event.

As an example, leaving a mapping satellite over Minmus, while you prepare for your first trip to Duna, all the while leaving a standing mun site to collect research or materials. As time progresses, in theory, the game would only have to record simple adjustments to these objects as the game is in it's timed state. As the satellite moves, using light panels to maintain it's power, it will continue collecting real time data based around where it is, all the while judging by it's parts resource logic on it's ability to do so.

Therefore, you could be managing your mun installation at the time, when you get a beep on some preset gui tool (representing your real time events, so probably by your mission timer.) Alerting you to another vehicle, by opening the map and hovering over the vehicle in question (that would be marked in some way) You'd find that it's the mapping Satellite, and a small electric bolt icon would simply state that the vehicle is at a lack of sunlight, therefore power, and can not map until it's back in direct light. So you don't really need to attend to it, more as acknowledge an obvious event that has happened relative to the time it's been happening.

coming back to how time warp will be affected, your Duna bound vessel is now leaving Kerbin's Soi, and you're in for a looooong travel. Of course, you could also leave this trip to it's own devices while you manage real time events, but in the event that you don't have anything else requiring your attention, or "will" be requiring your attention in the span of the trip, you can activate extended time warp, and fast forward the trip.

Now, say you left the satellite up? Well, even though it's due to constantly enter a powerless state, the rail logic would have to have known this to begin with, and therefor could simply treat it as a time when the satellite isn't mapping. As for the base, unless something specific happens, time could still be sped up to that point, allowing you to act appropriately to it, while shortening your Duna trip by that much of your own time.

It's only an idea, and I'm a bit skipped around in this post. But I'm polishing the idea for my own suggestion on how to allow resources and other game mechanics fit within this rule of time for career.

[allmhuran]

Yeah, I think this is pretty much along the lines of what I had in mind too.

Some kind of optional alert to break you out of warp when a different craft meets some kind of objective does seem like a good idea, and is something we have seen in the mods already (Kerbal alarm clock).

I also toyed with an addition to this, which would be to make the kerbal universe time somehow matter. For example, right now let's say you miss your launch window to Duna. No biggie, just turn on 100,000 times warp and wait for the next launch window. There's no disadvantage to doing this, because right now "kerbal time" is not really relevant. But imagine if there was some disadvantage. For example (again, clearly career mode focused), imagine if you had to get some kind of return from your space program within certain amounts of time or risk going bankrupt.

In 0.23 terms (just as a for instance) we might say that you need to acquire a certain amount of science data in a certain amount of time. Nothing that would be a problem even for a new player, but enough that you could no longer undo the consequences of a bad launch by simply sitting in 100,000 times warp until the next super efficient opportunity arose. Perhaps you would need to scrape together another small mission with whatever budget you have left over to gather just a bit of science around Kerbin to keep your space program afloat. Or perhaps you can't wait for a Duna window, you need data now, better get a satellite Kerbal satellite or two up in the meantime. It does seem to add a lot of additional dynamic to the game and provides more continuity, which seems important to career mode. But it, too, would still require non-focused craft to able to be active.

[Kegereneku]

Very interesting subject, I had a discussion topic about the relevance of time in game mechanic.

This is indeed a very important problem as the player can't be everywhere, the game can't simulate everything at once and we can't just keep doing "instant science".

Even more crucial that for now nothing really require an automated satellite (or much of a rover).

So I'm also interested to know what solution SQUAD is working on.

Or does anyone have any suggestions as to how we could have things like scanning/mapping/data collection satellites in a way that still allows the player to actually be playing the game?

Myself I think it could be done the following way :

- The player start an time-based experiment that require an orbit (and energy over time).

- The game make an exception and keep calculating energy consumption/generation for this flight (we know it work in timewarp)

- Focus isn't required anymore.

- The player can learn from the Space Center screen if a probes is "out of energy". (so the player have to make sure the satellite can survive the night)

The main concern is how resources intensive it is for the game-engine. (although we can hope that newer version of Unity will solve this)

In 0.23 terms (just as a for instance) we might say that you need to acquire a certain amount of science data in a certain amount of time. Nothing that would be a problem even for a new player, but enough that you could no longer undo the consequences of a bad launch by simply sitting in 100,000 times warp

I don't think this is a good idea to risk "bankruptcy" because you can't gather enough "science by time". If the mark is too high it make no difference, if it is too low you can lose the game by warping accidentally (unless you keep the player from warping before he "science something" which would be a nightmare).

However I think the player could be denied a budget boost outside the optimal launch window for Duna or another planet. The problem it that is suppose you get budget for specific mission and don't simply use the money to launch fuel tank in orbit.

But at that point we could use a third "Reputation" mechanic to balance the system.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Kegereneku

[iMAniaC]

I'd like to share an experience I had playing Minecraft: I played it a lot and really liked it and one of the things that really appealed to me was the feeling of building something from nothing, which is much of the appeal of KSP for me, too, only better because it's in space

Anyway, I started playing with a mod pack called Tekkit, in which there was a plant mechanic that allowed you to breed plants and getting new and/or netter plants through mutations and cross-pollination. There was also some mechanics with weeds and automatic removal of them. It sounded really cool and I started a project for breeding plants. However, the mechanics worked in such a way that you had to attend the plants every now and then, so whenever I decided to build an intercontinental railway or a castle or whatever, I had to take a break from my current project to tend the plants. Slowly, but steadily, I started disliking the plant breeding part because it always interfered with my other projects. In the end, I gave up on it altogether because it ruined the rest of my game experience.

The point I'm trying to make (and sorry about the round-about way of saying it) is that I fear introducing time as a valuable resource in itself to KSP, will have the same effect on my enjoyment of KSP as the plants had on my Minecraft Tekkit experience. I love the freedom that KSP (and Minecraft) provides for me to do whatever I like whenever I like. I can leave my Minecraft castle half-finished and come back to it later, or I can put my KSP plane project on hold and take a trip to Duna instead. However, if I were forced to halt my mission to Duna because I had to do a manned mission to Mun before the probe arrives at Duna instead, I'm afraid it might remove some of the fun of KSP, at least for me. Of course, a time-dependent KSP might be a very good, challenging and fun game, but it wouldn't be the game I had hoped for, personally.

All that being said, time as an indirect resource might work very well, I think. I think the fun (for me) in KSP is overcoming the challenge of building a rocket (or plane/station/whatever) that is able to do what I've set my mind to. Building a rocket that is able to win a race against time (like getting to Eve before life support runs out or whatever) is basically the same challenge. However, if all I want to do is go to Eeloo, then doing all kinds of other missions while waiting to get there might feel boring and take the fun out of those missions when they might have been my #1 priority if I could do them when I became excited about them instead of when I really wanted to do something else.

A way to please everyone (or at least almost everyone) might be to have several options when starting a Career game (or adjusting while playing). Toggle on/off Tech tree, Building cost, Building time, Over-time game mechanic, etc. That way, the players get to decide themselves how much restriction and freedom they want.

My two cents.

[Kegereneku]

Those 2 cents of yours are very valuable.

Maybe KSP should stick to a "no loss outside player focus" model ? This is something the devs answered when asked about "random damage".

However, if the outcome is predictable, non-intrusive or do not go-horribly-wrong outside player focus "over time" gameplay should be possible.

On the matter, it is fairly common to launch several probes at once for different destination, and I certainly wouldn't like it if the game forced me to finish something or revert to a very earlier state because it didn't allowed me to do two "missions" in the same time frame.

If we get a Kerbal-clock-alarm system to plan our maneuver we should just remember to suggest an alert notice in case two thing will require your attention at the same time.

A way I've though off to follow that "no loss" rules while creating an incentive to do thing fast is the "fixed-budget" : Each month you are given a non-cumulative budget to launch things. You would increase that budget while doing rewarded stuff.

It does however suffer of a problem :

- Once docking-ring are available, a player could in theory timewarp indefinitely and assemble fuel tank in orbit for a ship to go anywhere.

It could be a viable way of playing but I fear it could interfere with other mechanism meant to create a "progression" in the game.

[allmhuran]

$0.02

That's a really excellent post, I was nodding my head most of the way through.

Your comparison with minecraft is interesting, indeed I have a different topic about objective/reward game types. The bit that I find interesting is this: do you feel like there is a dfference between the castle you have finished building in miecraft, vs the base that you have, say, landed on Duna? It seems to me that once you've landed the base on Duna, it's basically just "art" that you've added to the lifeless KSP universe. But in minecraft you have actually affected the universe itself (and indeed, that castle might serve a purpose - I've never played minecraft but as I understand it has things like zombies, "electrical" systems you can create to make your castle "active", and so on).

Back to the time mechanic: Does this just come down to a distinction between career mode and sandbox mode? In sandbox we can do what we like whenever we like, that's basically the whole idea. But career mode seems, by definition, to be a mode that would require some kind of tangible connection between one mission and the next (in the sense that they are all working towards whatever the career mode objectives are), which also suggests, at least to me, that all the missions operate within the same "universe", and therefore the same time... at least eventually. Right now that's not the case, the "science points" don't care how many missions you flew, how long they took to fly, whether they were "profitable" (because that's not a thing in the game yet), and so on. But I expect that as career mode gets tied together a little more, the "common time" mechanic would make more sense.

[LethalDose]

I've never understood the "Time acceleration makes time-dependent mechanics meaningless" in this game, because the game already has time dependent mechanics that aren't irrelevant. Consider the following facts:

1. The game is about space travel. Travel is inherently time-dependent, i.e. it takes time to travel from Kerbin to the Mün.
   
2. Planetary approaches/Launch windows are determined by planetary positions and planetary positions are dependent on time. Therefore, interplanetary travel and approaches are time-dependent mechanics.
   
3. When time dilation is used, everything (planets, craft, satellites) are all affected equally.
   

Opinion: Travel and planetary positions are time-dependent mechanics, and not rendered meaningless by time-acceleration in the game.

If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. I'm not debating it. I will state that it's difficult for me to understand why someone who disagrees with that opinion would play this game.

Time already is a commodity in the game. Time always consumed at an internally consistent rate, but the player just has control over how he perceives it's flow. I would posit that fundamental AND time-dependent game mechanics are already in the game, and not rendered meaningless by time acceleration. If you're concerned that selecting a craft and pressing time-acceleration is "not playing the game", then why aren't we already complaining about it when we fly interplanetary missions? The expense of using time-acceleration is that you may miss a transfer window.

I would also point out that there is a difference between game time and player time. I would like to see additional game time dependent mechanics (science, resourcing, etc) included. The game should respect player-time.

So, to conclude, based on the facts and logic I've presented above, I don't think there is an "over time" problem as suggested by the OP.

[CodatheSpaceFox]

What this guy said.

I agree with your point on how time is already managed, and you're right. I also don't think KSP has an "Over Time" problem, instead it's more of a "Meanwhile" problem.

The game already maintains a steady flow of time and it's affect on the Position of unfocused crafts as well as focused ones. Obviously the rest of the galaxy isn't going to freeze during your mission to Laythe, and a probe that's mun bound sure is hell isn't going to wait to impact in the meantime.

The Kerbal Alarm Clock mod is a good example of keeping things like this managed, as someone suggested. Except to focus on keeping it minimal and automatic. As I set an example before, I'd believe the career mode could make use of time being valued in a set time aspect, and could give the basic player an experience of managing their work as efficiently as possible while not keeping them on a fixed storyline of missions or time based objectives. At the same time, this shouldn't hinder advanced pilots in the slightest, since many would probably already have some sort of ability with managing multiple ships at around the same time frame.

Think of it less as fitting a set amount of things in a set amount of time, but more as respecting events that can happen within that point in time, whether or not it's been skipped. Unfortunately, KSP may keep rail mechanics and other such values of unfocused vessels on record in the meantime, but their resources, and tasks. Are halted.

So to fix that, I'd guess Squad just needs to add another portion of information for tasks like research that would take time, like maybe a greenhouse on another planet testing to see how well they grow. Or even resources if they add them, which would allow a collection installment to collect or create usable resources for your space center while you're busy with other projects.

To kind of wrap up a rant.

• Passive tasks like Mapping, time enduring research, resource collecting/creating/refining, and many other tasks maintain the same flow of time as the rail system, and simply alert a player to them if something changes.
  
• Current game mechanics remain unchanged, and this even fixes minimal logic breaks like time warping an unfocused probe to stop electrical drain if it doesn't have a power source.
  
• This simply mechanic adjustment can be built on and around in career and typical sandbox play, and even supports Squad's somewhat discredited resource chart into becoming less of a grinding fest, and more as a passive benefit.
  
• We can even use the planned kerbal system to teach kerbals how to perform tasks behind the scenes, by showing them while in focus firsthand.
  
• Life support, and even the comfort of your kerbals can be taken into account if desired, giving a reason to add habitats and previously useless kerbal storage centers, allowing kerbals to flourish in their duties without feeling like sardines.
  
• Events, such as possibly introducing passing asteroids into game as a simple example, while not requiring the player to interact, could benefit the daring kerbalnaut into getting close to it's ark through the galaxy to really light a fire under your science expeditions.
  

All by keeping track of a little more code in the "meantime."

[Kegereneku]

I've never understood the "Time acceleration makes time-dependent mechanics meaningless" in this game, because the game already has time dependent mechanics that aren't irrelevant. Consider the following facts:

[........ Lot of interesting stuff........ ]

I would also point out that there is a difference between game time and player time. I would like to see additional game time dependent mechanics (science, resourcing, etc) included. The game should respect player-time.

So, to conclude, based on the facts and logic I've presented above, I don't think there is an "over time" problem as suggested by the OP.

I think the "over time" problem refer specifically to those possibility of "additional game time dependent mechanics". The logic often heard being that if one only need 10 days to do an experiment/scan he will just timewarp through it, thereby making the mechanic "meaningless" as well as tedious. It can also pose problem if money is involved.

So it would be interesting to know if/how the development team intend to deal with the relation ship between game-time and player-time.

- Does nothing happen unless you focus on it ?

- Or can you do work to set up an experiment and get the reward when finished ? (adding more possibility)

[LethalDose]

I think the "over time" problem refer specifically to those possibility of "additional game time dependent mechanics". The logic often heard being that if one only need 10 days to do an experiment/scan he will just timewarp through it, thereby making the mechanic "meaningless" as well as tedious.

This was directly my point: It is my opinion that, since a player can time accelerate a 10 day transit between two bodies and not render the transit mechanic meaningless, a player can time accelerate a 10 day science experiment and not render science over time mechanic meaningless.

It can also pose problem if money is involved.

I don't see how, and fail to see how it would be a problem here specifically, but not elsewhere other time acceleration mechanics. Also no money in the game right now so it's moot.

Seriously, I'm only addressing this to be clear I'm not ignoring it. Not looking to discuss it.

So it would be interesting to know if/how the development team intend to deal with the relation ship between game-time and player-time.

- Does nothing happen unless you focus on it ?

- Or can you do work to set up an experiment and get the reward when finished ? (adding more possibility)

The second one. Just code around it. It's possible.

More explicitly: Create an "experiment" ship resource (like electric charge) that fills as the experiment is progresses. When that resource meter is full, you click the part and collect the science. It's pretty clear that the game can accurately track/calculate ship resources through time accelerations.

[Unfawkable]

Well, everyone has just been so constructive here that I have nothing to add. I agree that time should be managed to matter in game, and that events should be handled parallel, or to suffer penalties such as money or reputation loss. I do however also think as someone mentioned that it should be an option, a customizable new game where you get to choose how much freedom you have.

[allmhuran]

Time already is a commodity in the game. Time always consumed at an internally consistent rate, but the player just has control over how he perceives it's flow. I would posit that fundamental AND time-dependent game mechanics are already in the game, and not rendered meaningless by time acceleration. If you're concerned that selecting a craft and pressing time-acceleration is "not playing the game", then why aren't we already complaining about it when we fly interplanetary missions? The expense of using time-acceleration is that you may miss a transfer window.

I actually agree with this, the problem is not time acceleration as such, as I said that's a necessary mechanic.

What I'd like you to do in order to understand what I'm saying is to think about how a player actually plays the game. I will continue using the example of a surface scanning satellite, because that seems like an obvious kind of mechanic we might want to have.(Aside: and not just for some abstract "science points". You would want to do it in order to find good landing sites for your next mission. This is important. There's no need to add "gimmicks" to make it fun and useful).

The player builds their rocket, sends it to Duna, puts the satellite in orbit and starts scanning. Now, this scanning process is going to take a long time... weeks or months of game time. So how are they going to achieve this? Well, clearly they're going to time accelerate. But while they are doing that, all they can do is watch the satellite orbit. They cannot go and launch another ship and do something else, because as soon as the player switches away from that craft it will stop functioning. I like the word CodatheSpaceFox used: there's a "meanwhile" problem. All operations of your space program have to be performed serially, and the player is locked in to doing literally nothing for several minutes if they want to complete their scanning. This is what I talked about in my second point.

OK, so the player might get bored being forced to do nothing for a few minutes, but at least time acceleration means they don't actually have to wait months of real life time for this to occur. But here's the thing: if the player does accept that they have to just warp through it and watch things happen, time in the kerbal universe is going to advance quite significantly. Their whole space program is essentially doing nothing for that duration. This brings me to the first point: at the moment there's no drawback to doing this. (Of course there couldn't be right now, because the player has no other choice, and punishing them for something they can't change would be silly).

Now let me switch to the example of the last mission I ran in 0.22 career mode. It was the first mission I launched in a new career, using just starting parts, and it earned over 5000 science. I gravity assisted my way around almost the whole Kerbal system. If I "missed" a graivty assist it didn't matter, I just warped around until I had another opportunity. I planned maneuvers to get intercepts three or four orbits in advance to minimize delta V, and then just warped through to the intercept.

In total, the mission took something like 20 in game years. But surely that doesn't make sense in terms of the realities of running a space program. I essentially exploited the fact that nothing in the game itself "cares" how long it takes you to do something. When I eventually recovered my craft and went to build my next mission the fact that the first one had taken so long had no material impact.

Edited December 17, 2013 by allmhuran

[dartimos]

An option is to make the player able to go back forth in time post-mission. Once a mission is "finished" it is permanently locked into the system as an event that happened. The science is earned based on where the player is in the timeline. The player would, in effect, be controlling multiple ships easily in comparison to the one non-orbit mission that most players play. Any collision with a preexisting, non-finished part results catastrophically (down-side of this idea) and only affects the currently selected ship.

This would make a Space-Race style possible as well as make a viable model for their future MP ideas. It also gives players the ability to race to a goal. ***However, I would shy from punishing the player for spending too much time doing what they want to do unless there is some purpose behind it other than arbitrarily increasing the difficulty.***

EXAMPLE

I launch a mission (Operation Mun; OM) to the moon. Grab soil samples. Go home. Finish mission, locked in.

I go back to an hour after I've launched OM. The science hasn't kicked in yet, so I can't unlock any new parts. As I blast into orbit on Operation Kerbal Orbit (OKO), I can see in where my last mission is in real time. I take observe some goo and radio it home. End the mission as I see OM landing.

I go to my R&D, finally OM research has come home. In addition, OKO's research has been received. I pick up from this point and start with new shinies. I can go back in time if I want, but I won't have the shinies (I purchased them in the future).

[allmhuran]

Functionally, that would certainly do the job. But I'm not sure it's the most elegant solution from a design or gameplay point of view.

[Kegereneku]

Your suggestion make the words TIME PARADOX flash in my eyes.

It basically suggest that future/earlier mission you did/in the future somehow happen in front of you while you do a new one. Since KSP is a sandbox that rely on keeping the track of past mission/debris. What if you keep your own mission from happening ? How is the game supposed to deal with on-rail mission ?

This is just not possible at all. Unless SQUAD used code from the SBURB game of Homestuck.

[AngelLestat]

Well, all this TIME thing seems like a big mess.

I would give all the reputation that I can to the first who solve this problem.

This problem seems like a two-edged sword.

For one side, we have that time in KSP is meaningless. Becouse it does not matter if we are 50 years playing with a prove mission. Becouse the technology it will not increase in those 50 years.

Then we have a lot of things like many of you pointed that are time dependent, one of them is the charge of the solar panels.

Also, we need to take into account the future addoms like a economic system and mining resources.

Then we need to merge all of them with time warp, and try to avoid:

-repetitive mechanics

-abusive mechanics

-multitasking missions advantages

-mechanics that removes the game freedom.

Some games solve these problems using turn base mechanics or goals.

But it seems that in this case we need to have some mechanics time dependents, and others based in goals.

Other way to look this problem would be make all time dependent, but then you will have a time limit to complete missions. This will remove a lot of the freedom that the game already has.

How I said.. Is a big mess.

Good luck. Maybe someone can think out of the box here and solve the whole thing.

[loki130]

I believe I've heard that there will be a reputation resource at some point, so perhaps this could be something that degrades over time and brings your budget down with it (I also think a periodic budget like this makes more sense than the reward for mission completion like it is in, say, Mission Controller). That way, you'd have to keep launching missions rather than just wait for the next one to complete.

One potential problem with this system, and a general one with any time mechanic of this sort, is the difference in time passage between early-game, Kerbin-and-Mun missions and later interplanetary ones. I can get through the early tech tree, send a few orbital missions up and a couple trips to the Mun, then notice that only a few in-game days have passed. My first Duna mission, though, can take up to a year between waiting for intercept windows (and missing them) and travel times. I can't think of a particularly good way to balance that, though maybe just having a spacecraft en route to an intercept could help maintain your reputation (though given that I often have to do mid-course corrections to get myself onto intercept, and everyone probably does for a planet on a different orbital plane, so this presents its own problems--perhaps you could declare a target planet ahead of time, which would give you a reputation boost while it's on the way but a penalty if you fail to reach your target in a certain time).

Perhaps, to mitigate the time difference, you would have to design a ship and then wait for it to be constructed, and you could adjust the construction time for a higher or lower cost. I could see how this could get annoying, though, if you're trying to reach intercepts or rescue kerbonauts on a failed mission (though I personally might enjoy the challenge of including emergency escape plans with every mission or having some general-purpose rescue craft waiting either in storage on the ground or in orbit).

As to "over time" mechanics like mapping and resource gathering, I don't think that it'd be a big problem to have them working in the background during other missions, though I'm no programmer. I know the "Interstellar" addon has a part that generates science without having to be watched. Mapping might be a little more complicated, but in principle I suppose it should be possible. Even if just this same ambient science-gathering is used, it could make probing more interesting (you could, say, have a part that generates a small amount of data every day that slowly decays until you move the probe a certain distance, making rovers more useful).

In the end, there are many possibilities.

[dartimos]

Your suggestion make the words TIME PARADOX flash in my eyes.

You would need to make any prior missions invulnerable. Until they finish, any collision ends very badly for the current mission and inability to dock, etc. No interactions until that mission is / was finished (with some sort of proper notation of what you can interact with). Not elegant, but functional.

I like some of the ideas floating around with reputation decay and such, especially as an option in career mode. However, I would be worried that it would be a limiting factor for large scale travel. How would a player"recover" from a mission that was long, hard and unsuccessful? Like AngelLestat said, there needs to be a balance of abusive mechanics of "free time" and the "time as a commodity" idea that limits freedom. The serial time along with time as commodity will punishing large scale failures (failed attempts that take lots of time naturally and not abusively). New players will suffer.

[Dwight_js]

One potential problem with this system, and a general one with any time mechanic of this sort, is the difference in time passage between early-game, Kerbin-and-Mun missions and later interplanetary ones. I can get through the early tech tree, send a few orbital missions up and a couple trips to the Mun, then notice that only a few in-game days have passed. My first Duna mission, though, can take up to a year between waiting for intercept windows (and missing them) and travel times.

I have been struggling (mentally) with this issue lately as well. The speed with which you can accomplish things around Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus is completely out of balance with the waiting time for transfer windows to other planets. In 0.22 I wasn't careful with time management at all, and by day 7 I had full communications and mapping satellite networks set up for Kerbin and Mun, and had visited almost all biomes with my science equipment. I was more than ready to go interplanetary, but I had something like 26 days to wait for my first transfer window. By that time, at the rate we were progressing, my Kerbals would have evolved into a higher order of species and teleported to the planets using only their brainpower.

I don't know how people don't feel silly setting up an advanced space program in a matter of a few days, but then time warping past months of idle time to get a Duna transfer window. It just seems completely out of whack to me. For me, game mechanics that involve time-management, and that slow down the insane rate of progress are going to be essential to give this aspect of the game some balance.

[rodion_herrera]

If a part actually COSTS something, and it would be a while before you gain enough cash to buy said part, wouldn't the "first few years" of your space program also progress slowly, even if your missions are only to LKO/Mun?

Ergo, the only reason why there seems to be a time imbalance, for now, is because the currency/buying system is not yet in place, IMHO.

[boomerdog2000]

I don't know how people don't feel silly setting up an advanced space program in a matter of a few days, but then time warping past months of idle time to get a Duna transfer window. It just seems completely out of whack to me. For me, game mechanics that involve time-management, and that slow down the insane rate of progress are going to be essential to give this aspect of the game some balance.

That's one reason I don't see a fixed per-month budget working, you would probably blow the whole budget in a week then time-warp until you got more money. The only fix I can think of is adding a kerbal alarm clock type function and somehow letting unfocused ships do what they need to do in the background (mapping, mining, etc.). The first part is simple enough, but as to the second, I'm not even sure how feasible it is given the frame-rate issues lower-end computers can have.

[Kegereneku]

That's one reason I don't see a fixed per-month budget working, you would probably blow the whole budget in a week then time-warp until you got more money. The only fix I can think of is adding a kerbal alarm clock type function and somehow letting unfocused ships do what they need to do in the background (mapping, mining, etc.). The first part is simple enough, but as to the second, I'm not even sure how feasible it is given the frame-rate issues lower-end computers can have.

A fixed per-month budget would shape the game more than you think.

- For starter you cannot create a ship too big or too complex at once. Leading you to do careful choices.

- The Mun may still keep orbiting Kerbun next month but the place you intended to land on may not be in the sunlight anymore.

- It give you a predictable metric to plan big mission. If you tell someone "You've got 1 Millions budget per month" and he is on an ambitious mission asking for several spaceship he could roughly plan 3 smalls probes launch, a tanker launch and lastly the departure of his manned ship along the 3 month he have before the best launch windows.

And before someone tell me that "You can just timewarp forever to get back at zero" remember that waiting is a perfectly acceptable penalty in video game as long as the player was given the mean to avoid it. In game were you can multitask you quickly learn to prioritize in advance as part of the game experience.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Kegereneku

[Kilmeister]

Remember there is a 3rd currency that will be in game. (Reputation). So exploiting a fixed monthly income by timewarping far into the future could easily be countered by a loss of reputation over the time period, making the monthly gains proportionally less until the practice of warping forward without doing anything is no longer viable. Along with this there can be an inflation mechanic applied to costs. Both mechanics would easily let you run your program over a span of many many years without any hinderence as long as you don't sit still for an extended period of time without doing anything.

[Dwight_js]

Ergo, the only reason why there seems to be a time imbalance, for now, is because the currency/buying system is not yet in place, IMHO.

I'm not sure that money alone will solve the issue, especially if successful missions result in financial gain. Launches will lead to more launches, and more money.

That's one reason I don't see a fixed per-month budget working, you would probably blow the whole budget in a week then time-warp until you got more money.

Agreed about the monthly budget. On it's own it's not a very elegant solution. I'm starting to think that there will have to be a very fine balance between the speed at which science is gathered, and money is accumulated. We need enough money to continue launching, and successful missions should be rewarded with the means to launch again. The scientific equipment in the tech tree should maybe be well spread out so that you need to use it on many missions to many different places to reach the next technology tier (this might require bigger steps in the tree as well). You basically exhaust the science points available to a particular piece of scientific equipment at the locations you can reach with your current rocket technology at which point it becomes obsolete, and gets replaced with something better higher in the tree. Re-visiting places now gets you more science with the new science equipment, and better rocket parts let you reach more distant worlds. I guess it's a kind of layered approach that encourages you to be bold in spreading out as far as you can with what you have, but also makes it worthwhile to revisit places later. Players will have more concurrent missions, which do necessitate some time-warping, but I feel that this is more acceptable than time warping with no active missions just to reach some future date (be it a monthly budget replenishment or a transfer window).