KerbalKon Announcements

[tntristan12]

I'd like to point out that the example approach I gave also eliminates one of the most complained-about problems with Kethane: the lengthy and boring scanning process. Since you can mine just as easily from one biome or another, the only thing you need to do is figure out which biome has the best breakdown of resources you're looking for (which can be done by sending exploratory missions to gather surface samples). No deposits to find, and no time warping for hours on end until you've found the region you're looking for.

I'd suggest the same drawback as the ion: Super-duper slow and takes a metric ton of electricity.

Yeah, I would think that they would require a higher amount of electricity per unit mass of resource produced than you'd get out of a larger, bulkier, manned pair of units. (EDIT: god that sounded wrong)

[regex]

Honestly, I strongly disagree that small probes should be able to manage their own refueling with zero external refueling. I think there should be some level of infrastructure that is needed for mining, resourcing, resource conversion, etc. for the explicit purpose of preventing this. As you pointed out there's a middle ground, for complexity as well as infrastructure.

That middle ground should exclude that low-end probe refueling (they should need to carry their own fuel), and the high-end "only massive creations can do resourcing". Moving towards the low-end would be too close to trivializing fuel use and too exploitable.

There are proposals on the table in the real world for refueling probes in-situ on Europa (and probably other places). They talk about reducing launch mass requirements in terms of kilograms, so I assume we're not talking something enormous that requires infrastructure. As far as trivializing fuel use, any resource system that allows refueling will do that; it should be balanced through other means. One possible way to do that is to give the converter or drill part a "durability" that can be replenished/replaced/fixed by an EVA. You could even give larger parts a much greater durability so that the EVA task doesn't become the focus of your resource extraction, and have the tiny parts never able to be repaired (or only repaired once or twice).

[Tiberion]

So we're just abandoning realism completely then?

Having a single part on a rocket be able to drill, scoop and refine material is frankly crazy. This fills the "overpowered, challenge-removal meter" all the way to full.

Look at how huge refineries are here on Earth? Entire industrial complexes to turn hydrocarbons into a petro-based fuel. Even the fuel cells on the space shuttle to convert stores into water and electricity is huge and heavy and lugging that thing around the solar system would be ridiculously inefficient. And that would only be like 10% of the equipment needed to do what you suggest.

Not only are you not going to drill and hit fuel, you're going to have to refine what you do get several times to get rocket-fuel grade components.

IF we're going to get fuel from other planets, it must be done through an actual outpost of some sort with permanent facilities, holding tanks, and such.

Its not like Back to the Future where Doc Brown just tosses some garbage into Mr Fusion and flies away.

[tntristan12]

One possible way to do that is to give the converter or drill part a "durability" that can be replenished/replaced/fixed by an EVA. You could even give larger parts a much greater durability so that the EVA task doesn't become the focus of your resource extraction, and have the tiny parts never able to be repaired (or only repaired once or twice).

I like that idea, but how about instead of durability we use heat load, because that's a mechanic that's already well established in the game. Currently you never have to worry about overheating unless you're launching a ship with mainsails attached directly to orange tanks, or flying 2 inches away from the Sun. That way, heat load can be removed (somehow) through EVA, or by constructing heat radiators to remove excess heat. Now, heat radiators don't need to be their own part necessarily. AFAIK KSP already has a basic conduction model, so adding some large, flat surfaces might do. Of course, there is probably still a market for a stock heat radiator part. Especially once they start developing environmental mechanics for the game.

So we're just abandoning realism completely then?

Having a single part on a rocket be able to drill, scoop and refine material is frankly crazy. This fills the "overpowered, challenge-removal meter" all the way to full.

Look at how huge refineries are here on Earth? Entire industrial complexes to turn hydrocarbons into a petro-based fuel. Even the fuel cells on the space shuttle to convert stores into water and electricity is huge and heavy and lugging that thing around the solar system would be ridiculously inefficient. And that would only be like 10% of the equipment needed to do what you suggest.

Not only are you not going to drill and hit fuel, you're going to have to refine what you do get several times to get rocket-fuel grade components.

IF we're going to get fuel from other planets, it must be done through an actual outpost of some sort with permanent facilities, holding tanks, and such.

Its not like Back to the Future where Doc Brown just tosses some garbage into Mr Fusion and flies away.

In the battle between gameplay and realism, gameplay has always won out for KSP. It's not just a matter of making a mechanic as realistic as possible; you also want to be able to encapsulate the importance of a mechanic such as resource mining in as few strokes as possible. Now, I was forthright when I said that my idea was far from perfect, but my point is that you don't need to choose between "massively oversimplified" and "rube goldberg levels of complexity" when discussing resource gathering as a mechanic.

Edited December 17, 2013 by tntristan12

[regex]

So we're just abandoning realism completely then?

Not at all, see my previous comment about real-world proposals for in-situ propellant production. We're talking savings on the order of kilograms.

[Tiberion]

If you want feedback, you should go make a thread in the mod forum and work on a design. This seems more like an exercise in trying to prove to Squad that they should just listen to you.

Fairly obvious things:

One part should not do everything. It might be able to do two of the things, but if it does, it should be heavy and have a penalty to be used.

One rocket should not easily be able to refuel ALL of its resources on a remote planet unless there is a SIGNIFICANT infrastructure built up there. It might be able to get more oxygen and water, or it might have the equipment to get some fuel, but not both.

All of these activities should be very inefficient (again, without SIGNIFICANT infrastructure present)

Not all planets would have all types of resources, or they would have some resources (water) in such low densities that getting any meaningful return from them would take extended periods of time. (Like getting water from martian soil - it would take something like dehydrating 100,000 cubic meters to get a meaningful amount)

See, these sorts of things are so far beyond what KSP currently is, and what our real programs can do. Its a whole new sandbox within the sandbox. It should be pretty clear why Squad needs to be careful with how they treat this sort of thing.

Frankly, I would rather see mining as a small-scale thing, where you can return things to Kerbin to study them and improve your tech levels. Unlock better fuel refinement or learn to synthesize fuels that are better. Creating and indusrtial complex out there feels way outside of what KSP is.

Not at all, see my previous comment about real-world proposals for in-situ propellant production. We're talking savings on the order of kilograms.

Quite theoretical, and only for a very specific case for a probe designed specifically to be able to do that on Europa. It wouldn't be able to do it on Mars or Ganymede or Titan or Venus. If such a system in KSP were bound by these realistic constraints, then it could make sense, on a reasonable scale.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Tiberion

[regex]

Quite theoretical, and only for a very specific case for a probe designed specifically to be able to do that on Europa. It wouldn't be able to do it on Mars or Ganymede or Titan or Venus. If such a system in KSP were bound by these realistic constraints, then it could make sense, on a reasonable scale.

I see no reason why you couldn't extract ice products from the shadows at Moho's poles, or on Duna's polar regions, or pretty much anywhere on Eeloo that's white, or anywhere else that's sensible. I would suggest it being a one-use part for balance; you're not going to do a grand tour with the thing. We're also abstracting for a game, we're not going for total realism here.

Just to drive home the point: All extra-planetary resource extraction is theoretical at this point. It's going to be science fiction in the game.

[Zeno]

Like getting water from martian soil - it would take something like dehydrating 100,000 cubic meters to get a meaningful amount

Depends on what you mean by a meaningful amount. According to recent finds by Curiosity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24287207), Martian soil is pretty rich in water:

If you think about a cubic foot of this dirt and you just heat it a little bit - a few hundred degrees - you'll actually get off about two pints of water - like two water bottles you'd take to the gym

So 100,000 cubic meters yields, by my math, about 3342020 litres. Most missions could likely do with far less than that.

Quite theoretical, and only for a very specific case for a probe designed specifically to be able to do that on Europa. It wouldn't be able to do it on Mars or Ganymede or Titan or Venus.

Actually, in situ production based on Martian conditions has been tested pretty extensively in the lab. NASA has looked into it a lot. It's been demonstrated to be both viable and efficient.

[tntristan12]

Hey guys. I created a development forum discussion thread to talk about specifics. They might get more notice there.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

So if I share a harsh word about it, someone might accidentally take stock and apply future feedback in a useful manner.

I share some of your sentiments but this is a bit of a pot/kettle/black situation innit?

[DominusNovus]

I'm not thrilled with the ambiguity from the Devs, because its human nature to assume the worst when we don't have enough facts to go on. Particularly when dealing with other people, it gives us time to anticipate whatever bad news there is. Now, for what its worth, here's where I'm coming from:

I played the demo a few times and liked it (around 0.20/0.21, I forget). After promising myself I wouldn't get hooked, I did my research on the game and saw that they were planning on implementing a resource system, which was a huge selling point for me. It was *the* thing that convinced me to pay for the game. Obviously, there's a risk in paying for future features, but I'm sure many of us have bought games in the confidence that they'll be better in the future.

I'm not going to get all melodramatic and talk about the obligations to the paying customer or anything like that. But, when you pay money for software and the developer says that they plan on introducing a feature, and then it starts to really look like they're walking back that plan... it hurts (never mind that it was the feature that sold me on the product in the first place). And the ambiguity hurts more. Again, not to be melodramatic, but this analogy seems very appropriate: Ever been dumped? Hurts, doesn't it? Ever been dumped by someone who just didn't tell you that you've been dumped? Hurts even more.

I hope this helps explain why some of us are very upset about this. Of course, the ideal situation would be for the Devs to jump in and say "Hey, guess what? We got it to work, resource mining is coming in 0.23," but I think many of us would be at least satisfied by getting some concrete answers regarding the whole thing.

PS, for every person who says that the whole logistical process of extracting and refining resources is boring, many people think the same way about managing apses and docking.

[MaGicBush]

I'm not thrilled with the ambiguity from the Devs, because its human nature to assume the worst when we don't have enough facts to go on. Particularly when dealing with other people, it gives us time to anticipate whatever bad news there is. Now, for what its worth, here's where I'm coming from:

I played the demo a few times and liked it (around 0.20/0.21, I forget). After promising myself I wouldn't get hooked, I did my research on the game and saw that they were planning on implementing a resource system, which was a huge selling point for me. It was *the* thing that convinced me to pay for the game. Obviously, there's a risk in paying for future features, but I'm sure many of us have bought games in the confidence that they'll be better in the future.

I'm not going to get all melodramatic and talk about the obligations to the paying customer or anything like that. But, when you pay money for software and the developer says that they plan on introducing a feature, and then it starts to really look like they're walking back that plan... it hurts (never mind that it was the feature that sold me on the product in the first place). And the ambiguity hurts more. Again, not to be melodramatic, but this analogy seems very appropriate: Ever been dumped? Hurts, doesn't it? Ever been dumped by someone who just didn't tell you that you've been dumped? Hurts even more.

I hope this helps explain why some of us are very upset about this. Of course, the ideal situation would be for the Devs to jump in and say "Hey, guess what? We got it to work, resource mining is coming in 0.23," but I think many of us would be at least satisfied by getting some concrete answers regarding the whole thing.

PS, for every person who says that the whole logistical process of extracting and refining resources is boring, many people think the same way about managing apses and docking.

I really agree with this post, I originally bought the game as well assuming resources would be implemented at some point. And have actually only put 13 hours in the game while waiting for it, as I don't have much motivation to play at the moment without long-term goals. Career mode is a good thing, and I am glad they focused on that lately(and am planning on starting up KSP again for a while to try it after this update as I have not played in month's). But replacing the resource system with multiplayer? That seems really strange when resources are the most anticipated feature for the game from a lot of people. Multiplayer should be added as a DLC or something down the line in my opinion, or not at all really(I don't see a good meaningful point to it other than to mess around a few hours with strangers if you don't have friends that play).

Edited December 18, 2013 by MaGicBush

[Tuareg]

I just think they have no idea what to do with this game and they think multiplayer is the solution for end-game activities what is fail... maybe the problem is with me, but i've mastered the go to anywhere in a week and the game became boring... i have no aims to go to anywhere anymore. i have my interplanetary superspaceship, i can attach landers, rovers, science to it and it orbit the kerbin useless 'cos i have no intention to go anywhere. give me reasons, give the players reasons or the game is dead... give us communication chain to use probes and satellites, give us life in the space and on planets to make us interested in going to anywhere. If you wouldnt notice squad, actually a very few of your customers are playing this game just to launch rockets endlessly. most of us wanna play it for some depth ingame...

[KasperVld]

I just think they have no idea what to do with this game and they think multiplayer is the solution for end-game activities what is fail... maybe the problem is with me, but i've mastered the go to anywhere in a week and the game became boring... i have no aims to go to anywhere anymore. i have my interplanetary superspaceship, i can attach landers, rovers, science to it and it orbit the kerbin useless 'cos i have no intention to go anywhere. give me reasons, give the players reasons or the game is dead... give us communication chain to use probes and satellites, give us life in the space and on planets to make us interested in going to anywhere.

If you read the post properly you will find this: "That doesn’t mean there isn’t a need for more “end-game” activities". The end-game activities problems is very much on the radar, but it isn't the current focus. You bought access to an unfinished game and you cannot expect the developers to focus on the existing player base alone. They are currently spending their time on another corner of the game that will need completing as well. If you're bored with the game you can try out some mods that make things harder or allow you to do new things, or perhaps you can play another game for a few months and then come back to see what has changed. "Give me (...) give me (...) give us": that's simply not how it works.

If you wouldnt notice squad, actually a very few of your customers are playing this game just to launch rockets endlessly. most of us wanna play it for some depth ingame..

This is a very unfounded statement, the forums are not indicative for the entire playerbase, even more so the vocal part of the forums are probably much less indicative. You're projecting your own needs on a large group which simply doesn't pass any standard of judgement.

[impwarhamer]

When squad announced that they had shelved resource mining, i was rather put down as that was one of the things i was hoping for. However, the announcement of multi player made me very happy, as it is something i've always wanted for ksp, and it will give me plenty of more things to do with my friends. Despite this, i imagine some people may not have the same motivation for this as i do, and i see how the would be mainly sad because of the resource thing.

To all of you who think this way, i would like to say that squad hasn't really let us down yet and i believe that whatever they do to expand on end-game activities, it will be done well.

And if your like me and you are desperate for mining, just install kethane and/or extra-planetary launchpads. It's the beuty of a game devoted to mod support!

[Plur303]

I just think they have no idea what to do with this game and they think multiplayer is the solution for end-game activities what is fail... maybe the problem is with me, but i've mastered the go to anywhere in a week and the game became boring... i have no aims to go to anywhere anymore. i have my interplanetary superspaceship, i can attach landers, rovers, science to it and it orbit the kerbin useless 'cos i have no intention to go anywhere. give me reasons, give the players reasons or the game is dead... give us communication chain to use probes and satellites, give us life in the space and on planets to make us interested in going to anywhere. If you wouldnt notice squad, actually a very few of your customers are playing this game just to launch rockets endlessly. most of us wanna play it for some depth ingame...

I agree 100%. Squad is dumbing this game down so much that I am downright angry. Multi-player doesn't suit this game very well. Especially when you consider the difficulties with utilizing time warp in a multi-player game.

I WANT RESOURCES.

I also want interesting places to go. Planets are boring at the moment and "biomes" are just arbitrary regions with nothing even remotely significantly different about them.

[ImJake]

I think people are being too quick to dismiss multiplayer. Afterall, multiplayer was one of the main selling points for me when I bought Minecraft. Maps in Minecraft are ridiculously big (about as wide as the diameter of Jupiter if I remember correctly), but my friends are usually relatively close to me. Thats because we choose to be near each other. I'm sure the same would apply to KSP, despite the size of the solar system. In the very least, we could at least directly see what each other are working on and have an easy way to chat with each other (hopefully there's voice support, and a view that shows their screen). You just have to make some kind of effort to interact; we do it all the time when docking.

The issue with time wrap doesn't really seem like a problem. Friends can use time warp as freely as they want, and then you catch up to the future when you're ready. The only issue would be when in situations where a friend docks to an object in the future, and you dock to the same object in the past on the same port. Squad could make a "Paradox Block" to prevent you from time warping or interacting with the object in these situations. Or, they could have the past take priority, and his ship is destroyed when you sync in the future, which would be funny with friends but annoying as anything with strangers.

It will be interesting to see what kinds of new parts and mechanics they add specifically tailored to multiplayer, especially in career mode. For those who complain that they will have no one to play with, play with each other; find others from the forums. Who better to play with than with some of the most passionate about this game. I do have IRL friends who play this, so I'm pretty excited to play with them. With the addition of multiplayer, the most pointless and random things become fun. Whats the point of seeing who can do the most backflips in a rover on Minmus, or who can fly around Kerbin the fastest, or EVA into Gilly's orbit from opposite sides of the moon for the most epic high-five ever? None, but it would sure as heck be fun.

I am pretty upset about the further delays of resources though. I actually really liked the earlier concepts for resource mining. Currently, science gives you a reason to go to new places, but not stick around. One of the major arguments for resources is that it would give purpose to bases, and the counter argument is there are better ways to do that. My response is why not have both; mining and processing resources should be one of the several reasons to set up long term bases, and it would allow them to remain independent.

Comparing this to Minecraft again, there are a dozen or so ways to obtain food in that game. Once I built my fully automatic melon tower, there was no real reason to develop other ways of obtaining food. But I did it anyways, because why not; it's a sandbox game, and the more options I have and things there are to do, the better. The same concept should apply to KSP. Mining resources could be one of many ways to get science, currency, contracts, or more fuel. You could always fly a fuel tanker out to where more fuel is needed (but I kinda hate doing that). Would being able to refuel onsite be over powered? The atomic engine is the best way to get to other planets, but does that make it op? I just think the rewards should be proportional to how complicated it is to obtain them, which hopefully isn't easy and small.

Maybe with with resources and multiplayer, maybe they could add harmless dirt or lethal processed metal projectiles you could shoot at targets, each other, ect. (I know, no weapons, but it would fun. This would actually be better suited for a mod. I'm sorry I suggested it.)

As someone who joined after .22 was released, I really appreciated how career mode and the tech tree were set up. It gave me a way to to learn the parts and mechanics with out overwhelmingly giving me every part at once. So I'm not opposed to catering to new players, but thats not a reason for lazy development or to dumb down the game. The career mode provides a pretty good learning curve. If I were the dev's, I wouldn't worry too much about making it easy for new players, it's pretty good now and eventually, they'll master the ropes. This isn't the completed game, eventually they will have to add more complex features if they hope to retain played interest. It would be nice for updates more aimed at veteran players mixed in with the ones for noobs though, and I wouldn't consider myself a veteran by any means.

This is a space simulator, but its also an open sandbox GAME. I love the realism thats put into this game. But realism should not be put in the way of fun gameplay, and they seem to be doing that pretty well. As somebody earlier said, if the game were too realistic, we wouldn't be able to send manned missions outside Kerbin's gravity. I'd like to think this game shows us where we could be in 50 to 100 years.

To those who say this game should be nothing more than launching rockets, simply ignore any additional "unnecessary features" they add and play how you want to. Keep suggesting things that would make the game fun to you, because at the core, KSP is essentially about trial and error and launching rockets. But don't prevent potentially fun content for others just because you don't want it.

Edited January 10, 2014 by ImJake

[I_Killed_Jeb]

what a nice post, please have some rep

[_Aramchek_]

I don't get the claim of the game being "dumbed down" when it has steadily gotten more involved with more specialized bits/pieces and gameplay elements.

Some people want it to be "super real hyper simulation 2000!", for which there are mods I'm assuming.

[ImJake]

what a nice post, please have some rep

Why thank you!

I don't get the claim of the game being "dumbed down" when it has steadily gotten more involved with more specialized bits/pieces and gameplay elements.

By that I mean the some of the recent post by the developers has me a little worried new features will be too simple for the sake of easy usability for everyone. Sure they've misunderstood a little and blown out of proportions, but that doesn't mean I'm not at least a little nervous. I haven't been around long enough to really see the whole development process, but I really like what they've come up with so far. I'm sure what ever Squad comes out with, it will probably be the right choice.

[_Aramchek_]

By that I mean the some of the recent post by the developers has me a little worried new features will be too simple for the sake of easy usability for everyone. Sure they've misunderstood a little and blown out of proportions, but that doesn't mean I'm not at least a little nervous. I haven't been around long enough to really see the whole development process, but I really like what they've come up with so far. I'm sure what ever Squad comes out with, it will probably be the right choice.

The game should be aimed at pleasing the wider audience though, and not niche players, the game's modability allows for all of that should people wish for such things.

[magnemoe]

I see no reason why you couldn't extract ice products from the shadows at Moho's poles, or on Duna's polar regions, or pretty much anywhere on Eeloo that's white, or anywhere else that's sensible. I would suggest it being a one-use part for balance; you're not going to do a grand tour with the thing. We're also abstracting for a game, we're not going for total realism here.

Just to drive home the point: All extra-planetary resource extraction is theoretical at this point. It's going to be science fiction in the game.

Main purpose of resources is to be able to refuel, this comes at the cost of making the mission profile far more complex.

If life support is added it will also provide more air and water even if this can be recycled pretty well it will become an issue on year long missions or permanent bases.

Main benefit of refueling is that you can extend an mission, it also makes an reusable program more practical. Stuff like having an ship going the Kerbin-Jool-Kerbin route bringing Kerbals in both directions while hauling modules towards Jool. Someone came up with an idea of an reusable fist stage for interplanetary missions, tug who take the dockable upper stage to the edge of Kerbin SOI, drop it and the upper stage continues toward target, this makes a lot of sense going to Eve and Duna as the additional dV cost is very low. Also makes sense for smaller missions other places.

Tug return to LKO or goes to Minmus to meet with an refuler before going back to LKO.

Yes deep space mining is science fiction, but far less so than manned missions to gas giants.

[Kaa253]

It's going to be science fiction in the game.

I thought it was all science fiction already, isn't it? Who are these small green humanoids?

Sometimes this game attracts too much attention for a desire for "realism". I find the level of realism versus game play enjoyment to be just great the way Squad has it now.

[SkyHook]

So is it me, or are life support and off-kerbin building not AMAZING things that could be done with a resource system?

[esinohio]

After wading through this post I'm so glad I walked away from the forums to hide after Kerbalcon!

I know I was invested in the initial resource design ideas. After toying with the Kethane model of doing things I let my mind fill in the blanks so to speak as to how this mythical resource system was going to work. I had visions of micromanaging an extensive resource retrieval/production system throughout the Kerbals system all tied into a thriving economy. Painfully over engineered and boring, you bet! Fun for me, hell yeah. Fun for everyone?? Well... In the end I can see how my definition of fun might only appeal to a very small community of OCD people like myself It was never about realistic or not realistic for me because I've always thought of this game as great fun that just "borrows" from reality and the sci-fi elements when needed.

Personally I'm very excited to how their new ideas of the contracts melds in with any mods the community comes up with. I think there is maybe even greater potential really when you think about the possibilities! And thus the cycle of unrealistic expectations continues from this admitted fanboy.

As far as the Kerbalkon twitch thing, I thought you all did pretty well for some developers they let out of their cages to see actual daylight! You all seem to have a focus on education so maybe next time you can nab some free labor for the production work from your local college. Pitch the idea to their arts department and I'm sure you would have film students lined up to intern or for a group capstone project of sorts. Just a thought!