It's not about resources, it's about goals, right? So what are the options?

[ÄlveKatt]

I don't quite see the disconnect between challenging and educational?

[Commander Zoom]

Challenge has to be carefully balanced in educational material, so that the slower learners (and there always are some) don't get frustrated and simply give up. A good community (and/or instructors) can help somewhat - consider all the "I just can't do (docking, etc)" threads, and the answers they get, often followed by success stories - but cannot be assumed.

And to the OP: this is a great thread topic, IMO.

[allmhuran]

It's not a disconnect between challenging and educational. The problem is this: If you want it to be educational for a primary school student, then you better not make it challenging for an astrophysicist. And if you want schools to be able to use it as a teaching tool in a 30 minute classroom lesson, you can't focus on building long term, end game content.

[AleksClark]

Solution: automated mass drivers.

End game would consist of placing these mass drivers on different planets/moons, and they would extract specialized resources enabling you to build things like more mass drivers, etc.

Fuel, ship building materials, etc, could be 'running out' on kerbin, caused by exponential population growth. But just a few mass drivers later...population is still expanding, and the race is still on. you need off-planet habitats, etc, until, one day, a genius working on distant Eloo comes up with the idea for a condom.

[Atoning Unifex]

Maybe the goals we should be looking at are those that current space start up companies are aiming for. Ones that I can think off the top of my head: Searching for valuable materials on bodies like asteroids/the moon, getting a team of people to mars & to survive there for a time, even space tourism, and of course further exploration.

First off the one potential 'resource' not considered before (that I have seen) is people. Building an orbital space 'resort' and safely getting tourists there and back. An off world science base where you deliver and return scientists regularly. Even the creation of an entire off world colony I guess. The goals here being keeping them alive! Other people's suggestions of greater focus on life support could make this much more challenging - getting food/water there in time and enough quantity etc. The bases wouldn't have to actually do anything other than house people for a time, but losing people would naturally massively impact reputation.

On the material resource side, there's nothing here that explicitly requires the collection of resources, searching for them yes but not necessarily returning them. So perhaps the delivery of a scanning device and then later a 'magic mining machine' and a 'magic transport vehicle' created by/for an independent company which generates a continuous income over time (on the assumption that they are managing the mining and transport vehicles that you launched for them). What I'm trying to suggest is a disconnect between the need for actual resources and the real life goals that the search for, and extraction of, them provides. Not sure it really works!

[Commander Zoom]

Some people are going to want to play out the whole process of moving stuff around, while others would much rather abstract or automate it. We see that now, with refueling - some build stations and ship all the fuel in from Kerbin, some go the extra step and install, drill for, refine and move kethane around... and some, I think, would be just as happy if off-screen tankers handled all the business of keeping their depots topped up for them. (There's a app mod for that on the SpacePort, in fact, to say nothing of just using HyperEdit.)

Again, it's the "all things to all people" problem - how can we (or SQUAD) accommodate the segment that genuinely loves all the grindy, tedious detail of setting up their empire and keeping it running without alienating those who don't want to be bothered with such things?

Edited December 17, 2013 by Commander Zoom

[Smidge204]

Isn't KSP supposed to be an educational game?

No. At best it's quasi-educational in that you can learn some basic concepts if you play it well, but its function is not to teach and little or nothing of what you learn from KSP (as opposed to what you learn from external sources in order to play KSP better) applies outside of the game.

What I want is similar challenges that a real space colonisation program would face

Have you played Orbiter? Realism is not always fun. Realistic sims are a much narrower audience.

Some people are going to want to play out the whole process of moving stuff around, while others would much rather abstract or automate it. We see that now, with refueling - some build stations and ship all the fuel in from Kerbin, some go the extra step and install, drill for, refine and move kethane around... and some, I think, would be just as happy if off-screen tankers handled all the business of keeping their depots topped up for them. (There's a app mod for that on the SpacePort, in fact, to say nothing of just using HyperEdit.)

The principal aspect of the Kethane mod, and why it's not necessarily a great comparison, is that it's completely optional. You don't *have* to search/extract/refine kethane. It can be very convenient to do so, especially in remote areas, but it's optional.

If an officially implemented resource system is similarly optional, then that's the best case IMHO. If it's required - if you cannot fully fuel your craft because you have not yet gathered the necessary resources - then you have converted KSP from a "Type 0" game to a "Type 2/3" game where your ability to play as you want is fundamentally restricted because you aren't jumping through enough hoops first. Doing this in a non-annoying way is a delicate balance.

Take Science as is stands now. You must jump through the hoops to get all the parts so you can play as you want, but that's tolerable because:

A) There's a clear end to it (full tech tree)

It presents a genuine challenge rather than just being something to slow you down

C) Failure to progress in Science does not impede your current ability

It's also something of a concession on the player's part because they chose Career Mode over Sandbox mode presumably for that extra challenge.

If resources were implemented like Science, you would only have to tap/discover resources a limited number of times to unlock them, and you would only ever need to continue searching for resources if you want to expand your capabilities. Being unable to build a particular part because you haven't scrounged enough unobtainium, or not having enough fuel because you didn't build enough refineries, could end up with your game being unplayable because you don't have the resources to get the resources!

There are games like that, too, but I'm not convinced KSP should be one of them.

=Smidge=

[Kegereneku]

You know I can't see why science couldn't be a goal in itself. A more evolved science-system that now obviously, we're like in the Alpha of Career mode.

As it is now, science offer a irreversible progress system that more or less allow you to start with whichever planets/moon you want as soon as you unlock the right part.

Now, make this "science way more diverse. Require EVA interaction, Manned Station keeping, Space Observatory.

Continue with a budget system that give you an incentive to optimize your mission and no just "pile up fuel tank".

Lastly, add more part / technology, use missions for both training purpose / more complicated objectives.

The result would be a progressively bigger/more efficient Space Program where doing SCIENCE is more funny than mining&selling resources, the Budget and the difficulty of reaching furthest planet would increase steadily the difficulty, while new technology would decrease it.

The openness of the game is already assured.

- You could either get most of your science-point doing heavy-gain expeditions on one planet only.

- Or you could spam probes for low-gain experiment.

The exact nature of that "budget system" and the balance required for reputation, science-gain, discovering planet through space-telescope is yet to be known but the point is that science by itself is a perfectly workable goal.

...to the point I'm actually surprised "resources" was ever considered for more than a mean (ISRU) to help the exploration.

[Guest]

Well, I imagine that resource collection was always meant to be optional like Kethane. It'd be silly if you had to mine Liquid Fuel on Kerbin before using it. On pad, you could fill up with whatever you want, at a cost. Of course, you could always run out of money for fuel, but at this point, it's probably your own darn fault. Resources should be implemented primarily two purposes: ISRU and extraplanetary mining operations. The former would involve making stuff to sustain an off-world colony and/or refuel ships on-site, all in order to run a particular mission. The latter would involve bringing valuable resources back to Kerbin to obtain extra funds in the late game. At no point you'll be unable to buy whatever you mine, but there would be other reasons for mining, much like with Kethane.

Have you played Orbiter? Realism is not always fun. Realistic sims are a much narrower audience.

Tried it, loved it. The only problem was that it only gives you insight in spacecraft operation, not in how it's constructed. It's the biggest advantage of KSP, it can do a lot of stuff that is outside of Orbiter's scope. Also, Orbiter isn't going to have any management subsystem, either. KSP is much broader in scope than Orbiter. I view the latter more as a scientific tool meant for research, even to the point of checking Orbiter stuff to later implement in KSP! Sure, you can have fun in Orbiter, too, but it's poor visualization (no map view like in KSP!) and super-detailed simulation means it's hard to get into. It's superior to KSP in actual flight simulation, because it can warp under thrust (much higher than KSP, and without usual issues with it) and simulates many spacecraft systems better, but it's simply missing all the other features KSP provides. Building rockets is just as fun as flying them.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Guest

[edusenx]

A game like this has allways the potetial to do something more, and fortunately there are many modders with that thing in mind. I think this game can develop much more 2 aspects that are pretty abandoned right now, and wouldnt change at all its sandbox spirit:

1: Exploration.

We spend a lot of time building the rockets and piloting them, just to land somewhere, plant a flag, pick a rock, and go back. There should be awesome structures, natural or alienesque, worth putting some efford into exploration. These things could be detected from an orbit, via satellite antennae, or even better, telescopes. That would encourage the use of rovers and planes, and would be a good reason to justify the travel. There could be also lost vessels in weird orbits, from an ancient civilization, that could give you new overpowered or funny parts.

It is evident that people use badges to show their achievements in the forums. Why there are not any achievements in the game? That would encourage people to visit all the planets, which is the most evident goal of the game.

2: Do things that are not supposed to be done.

A part of Minecraft´s success is the extreme flexibility of its engine, that makes possible to make anything you can imagin (via mods and plugins). I know this is no MC, theres no place for redstone here, but there are some cool mods like KAS or Infernal Robotics that can make that step beyond. The problem is that right now the game is not flexible enough to develop all these mod´s potential. There are challenges in the forums like "build a catapult", or people trying to make circuits to race with rovers... think in all that kind of things. I´d like to make a stupid rocket powered machine that end up throwing a kerbal far away. I´d like to race a "Paris Dakar" in Duna with other people. I´d like to build a useless transformer truck that vomits fire... and working a bit on the land maneuverability of the Kerman family could make possible to introduce a bit of platforming, or even some action (Jeb with a gun fighting creepers on Laythe? Shut up and take my money!)

[Dwight_js]

I'm a big fan of jumping through hoops, and over hurdles, though I prefer to call them "challenges" instead (sometimes I refer to them as "the whole point"). But I've come to recognize that different people have different definitions of fun, and it's a philosophical discussion where middle-ground is very difficult to reach. So I'll make this suggestion which I think honors the very open nature of KSP:

Game feature sliders.

For each save-game, the player will be able to choose the level to which each game feature will affect the game on a scale from insignificant to major influence. So it might look like this:

Money:

Parts are cheap and funding is high <----> Parts are expensive and funding is success based

Resources:

Go find 'em if you feel like it <---> Can't build parts without 'em

Vehicle build times:

Instantly available <---> Manufacturing will take weeks

Communications delay

Instant comms no matter where you are <--> light-speed limited communications delay

Turning everything to low will basically equal sandbox mode, but everybody will be able to tweak their setup to add the challenges that they like, and avoid the stuff they find grindey.

[allmhuran]

Indeed Dwight, that does seem like a good idea.

[Commander Zoom]

Sounds good to me too. Of course, the devil is in the details (and the execution)...

[zitronen]

I think KSP in the endgame stage should be a 3(4)X game:

Your space program costs X per day to run, you have Y income based on reputation which decreases if you fail missions or don't do anything. To make money:

eXplore: launch landers/probes to find resources (H3, platinum, fuel, rare elements) in space, no need for complex resource models for these, they can be just like commodities

eXploit: build colony on said resources. Colonies can generate X amount of science, fuel, money per day, depending on location, components and personnel. Colonies and KSC also generate missions (take X ton of Y from colony A to colony B for $$)

eXpand: unlock new parts, buy more boosters, build more/bigger colonies.

[Atoning Unifex]

I think KSP in the endgame stage should be a 3(4)X game:

Your space program costs X per day to run, you have Y income based on reputation which decreases if you fail missions or don't do anything. To make money:

eXplore: launch landers/probes to find resources (H3, platinum, fuel, rare elements) in space, no need for complex resource models for these, they can be just like commodities

eXploit: build colony on said resources. Colonies can generate X amount of science, fuel, money per day, depending on location, components and personnel. Colonies and KSC also generate missions (take X ton of Y from colony A to colony B for $$)

eXpand: unlock new parts, buy more boosters, build more/bigger colonies.

eXterminate your poor unsuspecting Kerbals in a variety of unlikely and hilarious ways!

In (some) seriousness though, I think the overall problem that everyone is going to experience is that, eventually you have done everything you want, and you can't 'undo' it because you already know the best ship designes to use, how to fly, etc. So setting yourself new challenges will become harder and harder. I don't think there's any way around this currently but there could be a way of getting around this via alternate contant packs for the game.

The obvious alternate content would be different solar systems - I'm not talking about interstellar flight here, just an alternate starting system (maybe a binary) where you could from scratch explore these strange new worlds, seek out new life... (sorry). Or how about a system a rogue black hole is about to decimate and you need to achieve certain conditions to save enough people in a colony ship of some sort.

Another idea is alternate part packs, we already get this with mods, but how about taking away some of the parts forcing people to use new (maybe ugly & inefficient) designs rather than simply regurgitating old ones.

Finally people seem to have forgotten the 'scenarios' section of the game - it's naturally lower priority than the rest for now but imagine the wide range of things that could be added in here to keep us entertained.

I guess what I'm saying is that we accept there's no way to perpetuate a single sandbox/career game indefinitely and to look at alternative ways of playing.

[boomerdog2000]

Not sure if any of you have played it but, my brain right now is comparing this to Anno 2070. They have specific scenarios with plot you can play out if you want or you can go to continuous mode (same gameplay as scenarios just a much longer term goal that you can set yourself or none if you want). Perhaps KSP could do something similar, when you start a career mode game, you could choose what (if any) endgame goal you wanted to set from a list. Possible endgame goals: (flag on all possible bodies, colony on all possible bodies, certain amount of money).

[kiwiak]

Resources, tycoon like stuff.. it just doesnt fits this game for me. Well, one resource like kethane, as a way to refuel on surface of alien planet is okay. But 10 various resources, transporting them around various bases..

This game shoudl focus just on piloting spaceships.

And about goals:

1) More planets, asteroids, comets etc to explore. Various challenges, planets with dangerous weather, radiation, unusual terrain features, dangerous seismic activity, interstellar travel.. Until you all explored all current planets/moons it was enjoyable wasnt it?

2) Expanding sience system, more methods to gather sience, more places to gather sience (something dofferent from just landing or orbiting various parts of planets)

3) Missions! Possibly randomly generated. Save crew of crashed ship until their oxygen drains, take samples from unusual comet until it gets too close to the sun, pilot ship with malfunctioning navigation... Well if i think about it, we have scenarios already. So, make more scenarios.

[FenrirWolf]

Its not like resource mining is forever excluded as a possibility for the game. What happened is the devs were working on a system that just did not pan out, so it was shelved. That is not to say they can't come up with a better one in the future, but have wisely decided to keep such plans, if there are any, to themselves for the time being.

[ArmchairGravy]

Some people are going to want to play out the whole process of moving stuff around, while others would much rather abstract or automate it. We see that now, with refueling - some build stations and ship all the fuel in from Kerbin, some go the extra step and install, drill for, refine and move kethane around... and some, I think, would be just as happy if off-screen tankers handled all the business of keeping their depots topped up for them. (There's a app mod for that on the SpacePort, in fact, to say nothing of just using HyperEdit.)

Again, it's the "all things to all people" problem - how can we (or SQUAD) accommodate the segment that genuinely loves all the grindy, tedious detail of setting up their empire and keeping it running without alienating those who don't want to be bothered with such things?

What I've realized playing .23 is that science is equivalent to Kethane. You find it, extract it, refine it, and return it. Science is the resource that KSP revolves around. I'm creating the same type of network to recover science that I used to recover Kethane.

As to the "all things to all people" problem--I am firmly in the latter camp, and would hate for the fun of the game to be replaced by what I would perceive as tedium and frustration. I think that mods should continue to be the way for people to get their grindy, tedious detail fix.

[crazyewok]

Why not type 0 and 2!!!!

Shouldnt the sandbox mode be for those who like type 0 game playe?

Type 2 for career?

Or you can do what alot of games do and have a menue to ajust your gameplay perameters, rules and goals before you start?

Rather one or the other why not try to please both types of players?

[crazyewok]

Why not both type o and type 2 ?

I mean sandbox is meanr for type o players anyway right?

So why not leave career for the type 2 players?

Why does it have to be one or the other? why not please both?

Plus why not do what lots of games do and even have ajustable settings in career to set rules, goals and other settings?

Its pretty simple to please both camps ajustable options!

Edited December 20, 2013 by crazyewok

[JSD]

What is the goal about space expiration to begin with? Two main reasons; Because we can (Yes, that is a reason), and because of the science. The understanding of it all. And that is the whole point in what is wrong with the science system in KSP. My opinion though. The point of landing somewhere is learning something from it. What was the mun? How did it get there? What happened to it? Was there life? Could it contain life? Science as it is sucks! It really does. It's a currency in career mode, other then that it doesn't mean a thing. Resources is a part of a goal when you land. IF you land, you want to drain the resources of it yes. IF you can make fuel or something like that, you would do that. Of course. It's a part of it. But that's not the goal. That's not the end game. Space exploration is all about understanding the planet, and or maybe move there/make a base/city/civilization..

[crazyewok]

What is the goal about space expiration to begin with? Two main reasons; Because we can (Yes, that is a reason), and because of the science.

And also resources and money hense why the private sector is dumping so much into it now. There a company that wants to mine near earth objects and you also have the space tourism comapnys.

This game should include if its based on earth :

Exploration/science

Minning

Colonisation

Tourism

And to please everyone? Well at the start of the game just have a menue to to select what you want in the game, that way everyones happy.