Single currency, Parts-XP and Game-Mode-Switch

[Mr. Scruffy]

I have been playing 0.23 recently, and i am enjoying it alot. I think, we are almost there, honestly and it´s getting time to wrap things up.

(1) Single currency: I think, there should be no distinction between science and credits in the game. Two different currencies only really make sense, if they must be earned in different ways and are not easily convertable. The aim of KSP is to get to places (and ideally back, too) and perform experiments there. That´s what you currently get science for. It´s the fun part of the game. What, then, would you get credits for - the boring, repetitive tasks? Do we really want such just for the sake of ´complexity´?

Here´s the suggestion: Abolish science points and make them credits, instead. Researching then costs lots of credits, parts just way less. The only number you´d have to display in the KSC would be credits. Simplifies things, without taking anything valueable away, and gets the game this much closer to completion of 1.0.

(2) Parts-XP: Any usage of any type of part is logged as experience for the part. After reaching certain thresholds, you can decide to spend credits on a slight boost of one of its stats (in the range of single percentages - dont OP this!). Make the cost of each ´level´ of a part rise exponentionly. Unused part-XP is giving a slight discount on follow up techs of that part´s tech.

This should be rather easy to implement, though balancing might be tricky here and there. It would open interesting choices to the player, though, without making things complicated. You can follow personal preference, maybe even a plan based on effeciency, but you cannot run into desaster, because there is no ´wrong´ way of spending your parts-XP - even if you dont spend them at all. It offers opportunities, but bears no risk. That´s fun.

(3) Career/SB-mode switch: Instead of, or maybe in addition to, choosing the game-mode on starting/loading, there should be switch avaiable on all screens in the KSC (e.g. always, but not during flight), allowing to switch between both proverbially ´on the fly´. For example in the VAB, the game would show all parts when in sandbox-mode [sBM] and you can build away freely. If you hit launch, the game will give you a notification, that you are in SBM and none of the achievements in this flight will count towards the career. If you hit the switch button, instead, and go to carrier mode [CM], the game will inform you if you have not yet unlocked parts on the built and thus will erase it from the drawing board, if you proceed and the parts-list will be filtered to what you have actually unlocked.

This set-up allows you to do inconsequential testflights from within the CM.´Revert flight´ then should only be avaiable on launches started in SBM.

--------

This, plus heat-effects/aerodynamics, maybe life-support and a bit of polish, and the game is about to be finished, imho...

Discuss!

[Paul Kingtiger]

For item 1, what science doesn't currently do is encourage efficient craft. You can build things with as many parts as you like and go for the biggest rocket you can imagine, because the same has no concept of cheap vs expensive. I'd love to see some sort of funding system in KSP career mode, so you have to think about what is required to get the job done and the risk vs reward of designing to budgets rather than maximum safety margins.

Public opinion is another metric I'd like to see in game, although this should be more of a score thing than a currency thing.

[LethalDose]

@the OP:

1- I disagree, and PK made a great point above: Efficient rockets should be encouraged. It doesn't make any sense that launching a rocket should "cost" science.

2- I disagree, again. I'd rather not have to "grind up" a part by using it repeatedly to improve it's performance. I know you said "don't OP this", but still, this isn't appealing to me as a game mechanic. I see the "realism" bent on this (As you use a part more, the engineers and tweak it and improve performance and the pilots can finesse it better), but from a game-play perspective, I think having a uniform performance of parts during the game is better, mainly because I prefer having the part's full abilities from the start.

3- I think this is actually a really good idea, especially if the parts available during "SBM" are restricted to your tech level of the Career mode. The problem is that everything in orbit, including resources like oxidizer and fuel and kerbals, would have to have a SBM/CM tag attached to it, and you can get into situations where you'd have to hunt down one piece of debris to terminate before you can go back to CM. Resources would have to be tracked to avoid this exploit:

1. Launch CM station
   
2. Switch to SBM
   
3. Launch tanker full of fuel
   
4. Fill tanks on station
   
5. Transfer kerbals to station
   
6. Terminate SMB Tanker
   
7. Switch back to CM
   

There's now a bunch of kerbals and fuel that got launched "for free" in SBM, but are still persistent in CM after the switch.

So, yeah, it could be easy to implement, but also easy to exploit. Code that would prevent this exploit would be a massive headache. I think it would be better to simply encourage players in CM to "test run" their missions in separate SBM games (the SBM missions are "training simulators" and "Engineering simulations"). It would be nice if the devs made it easier to transfer ship designs between games for this purpose.

Public opinion is another metric I'd like to see in game, although this should be more of a score thing than a currency thing.

Reputation is something that's definitely been listed as being included in the game. I'm not excited about it, but others are. It was announced in a 3rd party article right around the 'Kon.

Edited December 28, 2013 by LethalDose

[John FX]

If anything a part should become less good over time as it ages but each flight with an engine could increase the blueprint efficiency (maybe 0.1% capped at 2%) so new engines would be slightly more powerful/efficient than older models but the cost (in credits or whatever) to purchase it would discourage you from just building a new engine just because your design is slightly better, you should be encouraged to develop reusable craft.

Of course what this means is you should get the parts added back to your VAB when you recover a craft so you don`t have to spend that money again. Then it makes sense to recover and design recoverable/reusable craft.

That would be cool. All my stages would have chutes...

[tetryds]

There's now a bunch of kerbals and fuel that got launched "for free" in SBM, but are still persistent in CM after the switch.

So, yeah, it could be easy to implement, but also easy to exploit. Code that would prevent this exploit would be a massive headache. I think it would be better to simply encourage players in CM to "test run" their missions in separate SBM games (the SBM missions are "training simulators" and "Engineering simulations"). It would be nice if the devs made it easier to transfer ship designs between games for this purpose.

What about make ships on the SBM not persistent?

After you launch, anything you have done while in SBM rolls back, other than the ship blueprint itself.

Then it would basically turn into a simulation.

BUT it takes off the risk of failure, which is the main thing on KSP.

So it would be great it every simulation launch costed a percentage of the ship cost, so you can't just keep trying until it works perfectly.

Not sure about stations, but i belive that this simulation launch shouldnt show up any other simulation launches or CM launches at all.

And not have crew on any ship, nor allow science experiments to be run (or just show like "Computer reports that experiments doesn't work like that").

I like the parts XP idea, but as mentioned, balancing it would take a while.

[Mr. Scruffy]

(1) I guess there must some sort of misunderstanding. How is effecient building not supported by the idea? I think i must clarify:

Say, 1 science point equals, whathaveyou, 10,000 Kredits. So when you´d earn 10 points of science in the game right now, you´d get 100KK instead. Unlocking the first tier tech would, translated from 0.23, then cost 150,000K.

Now add to this, that parts cost money, too. Say, the starting engine costs 5KK, the fuel+tank another 5KK and the capsule another 5KK. You could add another tank, but is it worth the additional investment, considering you want to get to the next tech? Will the use of it yield another half point of science? (Obviously, i pulled the numbers from my rear - balancing is, of course, required) Or: Sure, using an SAS-system makes things easier - but it would also take another experiment or two, to make up for its use, financially.

Since you save up your money, two alternative playstyles arise as a continuum: The low-tech-heavy-on-parts-style and the techie-elitist-way-of-playing. Sort of USSR-style vs. US-style, if you wish (going by clichée, not going to discuss RL-space-programs). The need to build effecient crafts for the appropriate missions would simply arise from the desire to advance in the tech-tree - as you could not do that with missions, that merely pay for their rockets.

You´d lose the game, when you are out of funds to generate new income for new missions.

(2) It´d be a feature you could ignore, if you were not to like it. It would then simply turn out to make your science a bit cheaper for the fields that are unlocked by the fields of your most used parts. ´Tuning´ should by no means be a required player-action. If you chose to ignore it, you can safely do so, without missing out on the tiny-to-small boni it provides. It´s just a way to offer some individualisation of playstyles and crafts - stuff to play with, you know?

(3) Now, here i agree. The thoughts you describe occured to me shortly after posting this. And for the very same reason, it´s by far the one out of the 3, i am most willing to drop. Maybe every SMB-flight from CM-mode should take place in its own, clear ´universe´, thus disallowing interaction with any ´real´ stuff. To test and train docking, you´d have to bring up both parts in one go... I dunno.

The end to this idea is basically, that i think one should decide before hitting ´launch´, wether this one ´counts´ or not - not during or after the flight. Training for free is okay and probably needed, but at one point you should be required to say: ´Okay, now, this one is the real one.´ This should also be the point, when the price of your rocket gets deducted from your account.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Mr. Scruffy

[Mr. Scruffy]

If anything a part should become less good over time as it ages but each flight with an engine could increase the blueprint efficiency (maybe 0.1% capped at 2%) so new engines would be slightly more powerful/efficient than older models but the cost (in credits or whatever) to purchase it would discourage you from just building a new engine just because your design is slightly better, you should be encouraged to develop reusable craft.

Of course what this means is you should get the parts added back to your VAB when you recover a craft so you don`t have to spend that money again. Then it makes sense to recover and design recoverable/reusable craft.

That would be cool. All my stages would have chutes...

I like that idea. It does not contradict (2) at all. It´s merely an addition to it. (4) Part Recovery and Tear&Wear. It should cost a bit of credits, depending on distance to the KSP.

[LethalDose]

(1) I guess there must some sort of understanding. How is effecient building not supported by the idea? I think i must clarify:

Say, 1 science point equals, whathaveyou, 10,000 Kredits. So when you´d earn 10 points of science in the game right now, you´d get 100KK instead. Unlocking the first tier tech would, translated from 0.23, then cost 150,000K.

Now add to this, that parts cost money, too. Say, the starting engine costs 5KK, the fuel+tank another 5KK and the capsule another 5KK. You could add another tank, but is it worth the additional investment, considering you want to get to the next tech? Will the use of it yield another half point of science? (Obviously, i pulled the numbers from my rear - balancing is, of course, required) Or: Sure, using an SAS-system makes things easier - but it would also take another experiment or two, to make up for its use, financially.

Since you save up your money, two alternative playstyles arise as a continuum: The low-tech-heavy-on-parts-style and the techie-elitist-way-of-playing. Sort of USSR-style vs. US-style, if you wish (going by clichée, not going to discuss RL-space-programs). The need to build effecient crafts for the appropriate missions would simply arise from the desire to advance in the tech-tree - as you could not do that with missions, that merely pay for their rockets.

You´d lose the game, when you are out of funds to generate new income for new missions.

I get what you're saying here, but it doesn't change my opinion. On the flip-side of "Vehicles shouldn't cost science", I'd also say "Science experiments shouldn't generate Kash" (or what ever else they call it).

Simply put, I don't like single currency games: Games where all activities generate one currency, and the one currency is used for all purchases. The rationale for this position goes back to game design philosophy, and I believe the "fun" of games always comes back to decision making. "One currency" systems subvert this philosophy because decisions are reduced to choosing which option returns the most currency. In systems with multiple, currencies with exclusive uses (exclusive uses means things bought with currency 1 cannot be directly bought with currency 2), decisions are driven not only by currency return, but in the utility value of each currency. This creates deeper decisions making, and, in most cases, more fun.

Basically, One currency systems are too simple for my taste.

(2) It´d be a feature you could ignore, if you were not to like it. It would then simply turn out to make your science a bit cheaper for the fields that are unlocked by the fields of your most used parts. ´Tuning´ should by no means be a required player-action. If you chose to ignore it, you can safely do so, without missing out on the tiny-to-small boni it provides. It´s just a way to offer some individualisation of playstyles and crafts - stuff to play with, you know?

I'd rather not have devs working on ignorable features in games. And in a heavily community based game like this or Minecraft, keeping part performance steady across players and games is really important. There's already plenty of space for individual play-styles in KSP. XP-driven part optimization would likely discourage players from trying alternate play-styles with parts they haven't "leveled up" because those parts don't perform as well as the player's

This kind of mechanic is appropriate in games that want to encourage players to focus in a single area, i.e. "specialize", usually because the game system is unbalanced by "generalized" play styles (e.g. MMOs, RPGs, etc). This isn't the case in KSP: Players should be free to experiment with multiple play styles, and freely move between them. They shouldn't feel restricted (due to XP already spent in some parts) or punished (turning off the option, and getting worse parts) for being generalists.

And again, I understand that you say that these benefits are "tiny-to-small", but if they're too small to matter, why include the mechanism?

[Mr. Scruffy]

(1) I get what you're saying here, but it doesn't change my opinion. On the flip-side of "Vehicles shouldn't cost science", I'd also say "Science experiments shouldn't generate Kash" (or what ever else they call it).

Simply put, I don't like single currency games: Games where all activities generate one currency, and the one currency is used for all purchases. The rationale for this position goes back to game design philosophy, and I believe the "fun" of games always comes back to decision making. "One currency" systems subvert this philosophy because decisions are reduced to choosing which option returns the most currency. In systems with multiple, currencies with exclusive uses (exclusive uses means things bought with currency 1 cannot be directly bought with currency 2), decisions are driven not only by currency return, but in the utility value of each currency. This creates deeper decisions making, and, in most cases, more fun.

Basically, One currency systems are too simple for my taste.

(2) I'd rather not have devs working on ignorable features in games. And in a heavily community based game like this or Minecraft, keeping part performance steady across players and games is really important. There's already plenty of space for individual play-styles in KSP. XP-driven part optimization would likely discourage players from trying alternate play-styles with parts they haven't "leveled up" because those parts don't perform as well as the player's

This kind of mechanic is appropriate in games that want to encourage players to focus in a single area, i.e. "specialize", usually because the game system is unbalanced by "generalized" play styles (e.g. MMOs, RPGs, etc). This isn't the case in KSP: Players should be free to experiment with multiple play styles, and freely move between them. They shouldn't feel restricted (due to XP already spent in some parts) or punished (turning off the option, and getting worse parts) for being generalists.

And again, I understand that you say that these benefits are "tiny-to-small", but if they're too small to matter, why include the mechanism?

(1) You raise a good point there. I just wonder what would earn you money in KSP. Cause going to places - the fun part - is already covered by science. There will be a need for money - earning it better be fun, cause it will obligatory.

(2) Again: Dev-time is a good point. I just think it´d be a nice addition to the game. I´d not want it to become central, but something you might use once in a while. Like in: Damn it, this otherwise totally cool design fails - if it could only lift this tiny bit of extra-fuel... Let´s see the tech-tab. Oh, i could raise this thruster´s boost by 0.5% - that will make the next research field a tad more expensive, but for the mission after this one, i intend to take another tech, anyways. And if this works, the mission conducted with the planed design will probably earn me just enough to fund that tech and the rocket to do it. Well, it´s this or back to the drawing boards... Hmm...

EDIT: It also helps ´open-endedness´ as you could do this with the very last parts and make things possible that formerly might have seemed impossible, like a kerbaled-eve-return or somesuch.

(BTW: Since it influences tech-cost, it sort of is a second currency)

Edited December 28, 2013 by Mr. Scruffy